Yeah much like Sturrudge at Chelsea, he wasnt good enough to be a striker so wasnt used as one...
Although in fairness Sturridge had the world class Torres in front of him whereas Welbeck only had Rooney and RVP I'm front of him....,
Welbeck did get sold so we could have Falcao whose fairly average so if he's sold off for Falcao he must be pretty crap...
SAF Actually you wanted to loan him out, but he wasn't interested in a loan. Obviously he was valued as a player but LVG wanted Falcao that bad that he allowed him to leave.
Will he have a better season than Falcao, who knows one hopes he does, then we can all L@MU.
Yeah I would have much rather have loaned him out, will go onto be a quality player.
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 58 minutes ago
Yeah much like Sturrudge at Chelsea, he wasnt good enough to be a striker so wasnt used as one...
Although in fairness Sturridge had the world class Torres in front of him whereas Welbeck only had Rooney and RVP I'm front of him....,
Welbeck did get sold so we could have Falcao whose fairly average so if he's sold off for Falcao he must be pretty crap...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was good enough but Torres and Drogba were preferred. He scored even when played out wide, went to Bolton, scored goals, went to Liverpool, scored goals. Why do you keep comparing Welbeck to Sturridge? They aren't in anyway similar, in playing style or ability.
He scored at close to the same ratio as Welbeck from out wide.... Maybe Sturridge was a terrible finisher and suddenly became a good one at Liverpool?
He was the no.9 at Bolton, probably because he didn't have Bent and Gyan with him but a fairly average striker there to compete with..
And Welbeck will probably goto Arsenal and score goals, as the stats show he scores at a good rate upfront.
Their very similar in their career progressions. Both struggled to score when played wide both scored goals when played central... Both had moves so they could play upfront...
Sturrudge scored goals after his move, his career showed he would score goals up front. Welbeck will score goals after his move, his career had shown he will score goals up front...
Why are we even having this conversation?
Sturridge is a high goal scoring striker. Welbeck kicks his own foot when he gets into the box.
Frankly I'm a little bit embarrassed that you're comparing them.
It's cringeworthy.
I apologised for the stats on another topic as well.
I apologise that Welbeck has a pretty decent scoring rate up front.
I apologise that when they were both at big clubs and got played out on the wing their rate of scoring wasnt too different...
I apologise about these things.... That doesn't change them though... Sorry.
What stats? His stats are crap. He's known for being a hard worker, and having a bit of pace, that's all. I didn't see many of you crying when he was binned or many Arsenal fans not crying when he was signed. There's a very simple reason for this, he's not very good, never has been and never will be.
What stats? His stats are crap.
.....................................
Yep, his and Sturridge's stats playing out on the wing for United and Chelsea respectively are both crap...
I apologise for this, maybe I could go round trying to convince people that Sturridge scored more goals than he actually did at Chelsea... not prepared to do that though.
.................................................
I didn't see many of you crying when he was binned or many Arsenal fans not crying when he was signed.
................................................
There were some United fans sad to see him go... there were some (not many) Arsenal fans sad to see him go...
Probably wouldn't be the first time in history that fans have underestimated a signing.... can't remember many of us United fans celebrating signing the future worlds best player when we got Ronaldo...
...........................................
he's not very good, never has been and never will be.
..........................................
I agree, much like Sturridge he will have a poor career playing out on the wing where he won't fulfil his potential... you'll be happy to hear that a team have bought him who'll play him upfront though...
*some (not many) Arsenal fans happy to see him come.
29 goals in 90 appearances isn't very good. Even if he played on the wing in every game, nevermind that he played a lot of them as a striker.
To put into comparison we can compare him to Sturridge as for some reason you're desperate to do so. 36 goals in 46 appearances for Liverpool.
24 goals in 49 for Chelsea.
8 in 11 for Bolton.
Where is the comparison?
24 goals in 49 for Chelsea.
.......................................
13 goals in 63 League appearances for Sturridge at Chelsea. 1 in 4.8.
20 goals in 92 league appearances for Welbeck at United. 1in 4.6.
Like I said maybe Sturridge magically turned into a good striker overnight when he joined Liverpool....
Or maybe playing a striker as a striker instead of on the wing will result in them scoring more goals.
Ah you're counting sub appearances.
OK.
36 in 52 for Liverpool.
24 in 96 for Chelsea.
8 in 12 for Bolton.
1 in 2.5
29 in 132 games for Welbeck.
1 in 5
It's not even close.
Anyway you want to twist the stats, Sturridge still comes out, way in front. There's a simple reason for this and everybody but you seems to see it. I'll let you work it out, I'm sure you don't want to be spoonfed everything.
Now you have had to resort to bringing his Liverpool and Bolton stats into it
In the league (so both facing similar levels of opponent) when both at a club where they are not the favoured striker Welbeck scores at a better rate...
Now that doesn't mean Sturridge is a rubbish striker, he's clearly not.
Like Welbeck though he struggled until he got a move where he could play up front, hence his much better stats now and much better stats when he played for Bolton.
So clearly Sturridge, like Welbeck, struggles for goals when played out of position.
Does this mean Sturridge is a poor striker like Welbeck as well then?
No, clearly not, as when he moved and played up front he proved himself to be a good striker.
I guess that must mean that Welbeck is also not a poor striker for his scoring rate out on the wing?
Like I said before though maybe Sturridge was a poor striker (with those crappy stats like Welbecks) but magically become a good one overnight at Liverpool and it had nothing to do with him playing upfront...
I cant handle this shīt, just have to watch then to see whos clearly got more talent, hilarious the lot of ya
I cant handle this shīt, just have to watch then to see whos clearly got more talent, hilarious the lot of ya
........................................
Before Sturridge got his move to play upfront somewhere they looked much the same, Welbeck now has his move to go up front.
Have never said Welbeck is better than Sturridge, but I don't think there is much in it. Would need to see Welbeck playing in his favoured position to judge it fairly.
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 18 minutes ago
I cant handle this shīt, just have to watch then to see whos clearly got more talent, hilarious the lot of ya
........................................
Before Sturridge got his move to play upfront somewhere they looked much the same, Welbeck now has his move to go up front.
Have never said Welbeck is better than Sturridge, but I don't think there is much in it. Would need to see Welbeck playing in his favoured position to judge it fairly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they didn't, Sturridge clearly comes out in front, as I've shown.
If you want to now twist it so we don't could his Liverpool stats and thus he has his stats being from 19 to 22, then we can do that also.
Before Liverpool Sturridge has nearly one in three, being a couple of years younger than Welbeck.
Welbeck has 1 in 5.
Would you like to try twist it another way? It doesn't really matter which way as Sturridge still comes out on top. There's a reason for that and everybody else sees it.
Welbeck actually comes out ahead of Sturridge league scoring from his time at United compared to Sturridges at Chelsea.
My point is that level of scoring doesn't show either to be poor strikers. We have proof of that with Sturridge play him in his proper position and he scores more...
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 8 hours, 12 minutes ago
24 goals in 49 for Chelsea.
.......................................
13 goals in 63 League appearances for Sturridge at Chelsea. 1 in 4.8.
20 goals in 92 league appearances for Welbeck at United. 1in 4.6.
Like I said maybe Sturridge magically turned into a good striker overnight when he joined Liverpool....
Or maybe playing a striker as a striker instead of on the wing will result in them scoring more goals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's my post again with the stats to help your recollection.
The chances of Welbeck repeating the goal scorer feats of Sturridge are very slim indeed.
So it's just league now?
Ok then from Sturridge was 19 to 22 he got 13 in 63 for Chelsea in the league(forget the other competitions they're just pointless). 1 in 5.
Welbeck through this whole time at United had 1 in 5.
Not really a fair comparison but let's go with it and say they had the same record when Sturridge was a couple of years younger then Welbeck.
So tell me, what are Welbecks stats for the period of 2009 to January 2013? Just to make things fair.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Welbecks actually younger than Sturridge, if we are taking it into account it works in Welbecks favour.
They both got their moves to play upfront at around the same age as well....
Even if you take out stats, just waych them play, yoy can just see whos better
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Danny Welbeck
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 2/9/14
Yeah much like Sturrudge at Chelsea, he wasnt good enough to be a striker so wasnt used as one...
Although in fairness Sturridge had the world class Torres in front of him whereas Welbeck only had Rooney and RVP I'm front of him....,
Welbeck did get sold so we could have Falcao whose fairly average so if he's sold off for Falcao he must be pretty crap...
posted on 2/9/14
SAF Actually you wanted to loan him out, but he wasn't interested in a loan. Obviously he was valued as a player but LVG wanted Falcao that bad that he allowed him to leave.
Will he have a better season than Falcao, who knows one hopes he does, then we can all L@MU.
posted on 2/9/14
Yeah I would have much rather have loaned him out, will go onto be a quality player.
posted on 2/9/14
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 58 minutes ago
Yeah much like Sturrudge at Chelsea, he wasnt good enough to be a striker so wasnt used as one...
Although in fairness Sturridge had the world class Torres in front of him whereas Welbeck only had Rooney and RVP I'm front of him....,
Welbeck did get sold so we could have Falcao whose fairly average so if he's sold off for Falcao he must be pretty crap...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was good enough but Torres and Drogba were preferred. He scored even when played out wide, went to Bolton, scored goals, went to Liverpool, scored goals. Why do you keep comparing Welbeck to Sturridge? They aren't in anyway similar, in playing style or ability.
posted on 2/9/14
He scored at close to the same ratio as Welbeck from out wide.... Maybe Sturridge was a terrible finisher and suddenly became a good one at Liverpool?
He was the no.9 at Bolton, probably because he didn't have Bent and Gyan with him but a fairly average striker there to compete with..
And Welbeck will probably goto Arsenal and score goals, as the stats show he scores at a good rate upfront.
Their very similar in their career progressions. Both struggled to score when played wide both scored goals when played central... Both had moves so they could play upfront...
Sturrudge scored goals after his move, his career showed he would score goals up front. Welbeck will score goals after his move, his career had shown he will score goals up front...
posted on 2/9/14
Why are we even having this conversation?
Sturridge is a high goal scoring striker. Welbeck kicks his own foot when he gets into the box.
Frankly I'm a little bit embarrassed that you're comparing them.
It's cringeworthy.
posted on 2/9/14
I apologised for the stats on another topic as well.
I apologise that Welbeck has a pretty decent scoring rate up front.
I apologise that when they were both at big clubs and got played out on the wing their rate of scoring wasnt too different...
I apologise about these things.... That doesn't change them though... Sorry.
posted on 2/9/14
What stats? His stats are crap. He's known for being a hard worker, and having a bit of pace, that's all. I didn't see many of you crying when he was binned or many Arsenal fans not crying when he was signed. There's a very simple reason for this, he's not very good, never has been and never will be.
posted on 3/9/14
What stats? His stats are crap.
.....................................
Yep, his and Sturridge's stats playing out on the wing for United and Chelsea respectively are both crap...
I apologise for this, maybe I could go round trying to convince people that Sturridge scored more goals than he actually did at Chelsea... not prepared to do that though.
.................................................
I didn't see many of you crying when he was binned or many Arsenal fans not crying when he was signed.
................................................
There were some United fans sad to see him go... there were some (not many) Arsenal fans sad to see him go...
Probably wouldn't be the first time in history that fans have underestimated a signing.... can't remember many of us United fans celebrating signing the future worlds best player when we got Ronaldo...
...........................................
he's not very good, never has been and never will be.
..........................................
I agree, much like Sturridge he will have a poor career playing out on the wing where he won't fulfil his potential... you'll be happy to hear that a team have bought him who'll play him upfront though...
posted on 3/9/14
*some (not many) Arsenal fans happy to see him come.
posted on 3/9/14
29 goals in 90 appearances isn't very good. Even if he played on the wing in every game, nevermind that he played a lot of them as a striker.
To put into comparison we can compare him to Sturridge as for some reason you're desperate to do so. 36 goals in 46 appearances for Liverpool.
24 goals in 49 for Chelsea.
8 in 11 for Bolton.
Where is the comparison?
posted on 3/9/14
24 goals in 49 for Chelsea.
.......................................
13 goals in 63 League appearances for Sturridge at Chelsea. 1 in 4.8.
20 goals in 92 league appearances for Welbeck at United. 1in 4.6.
Like I said maybe Sturridge magically turned into a good striker overnight when he joined Liverpool....
Or maybe playing a striker as a striker instead of on the wing will result in them scoring more goals.
posted on 3/9/14
Ah you're counting sub appearances.
OK.
36 in 52 for Liverpool.
24 in 96 for Chelsea.
8 in 12 for Bolton.
1 in 2.5
29 in 132 games for Welbeck.
1 in 5
It's not even close.
Anyway you want to twist the stats, Sturridge still comes out, way in front. There's a simple reason for this and everybody but you seems to see it. I'll let you work it out, I'm sure you don't want to be spoonfed everything.
posted on 3/9/14
Now you have had to resort to bringing his Liverpool and Bolton stats into it
In the league (so both facing similar levels of opponent) when both at a club where they are not the favoured striker Welbeck scores at a better rate...
Now that doesn't mean Sturridge is a rubbish striker, he's clearly not.
Like Welbeck though he struggled until he got a move where he could play up front, hence his much better stats now and much better stats when he played for Bolton.
So clearly Sturridge, like Welbeck, struggles for goals when played out of position.
Does this mean Sturridge is a poor striker like Welbeck as well then?
No, clearly not, as when he moved and played up front he proved himself to be a good striker.
I guess that must mean that Welbeck is also not a poor striker for his scoring rate out on the wing?
Like I said before though maybe Sturridge was a poor striker (with those crappy stats like Welbecks) but magically become a good one overnight at Liverpool and it had nothing to do with him playing upfront...
posted on 3/9/14
I cant handle this shīt, just have to watch then to see whos clearly got more talent, hilarious the lot of ya
posted on 3/9/14
I cant handle this shīt, just have to watch then to see whos clearly got more talent, hilarious the lot of ya
........................................
Before Sturridge got his move to play upfront somewhere they looked much the same, Welbeck now has his move to go up front.
Have never said Welbeck is better than Sturridge, but I don't think there is much in it. Would need to see Welbeck playing in his favoured position to judge it fairly.
posted on 3/9/14
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 18 minutes ago
I cant handle this shīt, just have to watch then to see whos clearly got more talent, hilarious the lot of ya
........................................
Before Sturridge got his move to play upfront somewhere they looked much the same, Welbeck now has his move to go up front.
Have never said Welbeck is better than Sturridge, but I don't think there is much in it. Would need to see Welbeck playing in his favoured position to judge it fairly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they didn't, Sturridge clearly comes out in front, as I've shown.
If you want to now twist it so we don't could his Liverpool stats and thus he has his stats being from 19 to 22, then we can do that also.
Before Liverpool Sturridge has nearly one in three, being a couple of years younger than Welbeck.
Welbeck has 1 in 5.
Would you like to try twist it another way? It doesn't really matter which way as Sturridge still comes out on top. There's a reason for that and everybody else sees it.
posted on 3/9/14
Welbeck actually comes out ahead of Sturridge league scoring from his time at United compared to Sturridges at Chelsea.
My point is that level of scoring doesn't show either to be poor strikers. We have proof of that with Sturridge play him in his proper position and he scores more...
posted on 3/9/14
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 8 hours, 12 minutes ago
24 goals in 49 for Chelsea.
.......................................
13 goals in 63 League appearances for Sturridge at Chelsea. 1 in 4.8.
20 goals in 92 league appearances for Welbeck at United. 1in 4.6.
Like I said maybe Sturridge magically turned into a good striker overnight when he joined Liverpool....
Or maybe playing a striker as a striker instead of on the wing will result in them scoring more goals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's my post again with the stats to help your recollection.
posted on 3/9/14
The chances of Welbeck repeating the goal scorer feats of Sturridge are very slim indeed.
posted on 3/9/14
So it's just league now?
Ok then from Sturridge was 19 to 22 he got 13 in 63 for Chelsea in the league(forget the other competitions they're just pointless). 1 in 5.
Welbeck through this whole time at United had 1 in 5.
Not really a fair comparison but let's go with it and say they had the same record when Sturridge was a couple of years younger then Welbeck.
So tell me, what are Welbecks stats for the period of 2009 to January 2013? Just to make things fair.
posted on 3/9/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/9/14
Welbecks actually younger than Sturridge, if we are taking it into account it works in Welbecks favour.
They both got their moves to play upfront at around the same age as well....
posted on 3/9/14
Even if you take out stats, just waych them play, yoy can just see whos better
posted on 3/9/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7