Down to the O-zone. Away to Fleetwood Friday Dec 297h 7-45.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I'm all for a tap-in. For a while, Baka was the best at them - being in front of goal, within 10 yards, to finish a move - it's a terrible habit.

[TANGODANCER]

I'm all for a tap-in. For a while, Baka was the best at them - being in front of goal, within 10 yards, to finish a move - it's a terrible habit.

Aye, I think Jimmy Greaves might have agreed with you..

[BWFC_Insane]

It’s not the time period it’s the very low effort count that I think potentially means it’s quite a low sample.

So a player can't actually be said to be efficient? Or can only be efficient if they're scoring 40-50 a season from at least, what, 150 shots?

It feels like the issue is that the data shows Vic is good, rather than a flaw in the very concept of an efficient goal-scorer.

I think you could include an average over a larger sample than 18 to make it relevant. It’s quite a low sample is all.

If you look across his last hundred efforts and the efficiency was the same then statistically that would be pretty relevant.

I don’t have an issue with the concept or stat other than it certainly doesn’t tell the whole story. The other side of the stat is that he’s not having many efforts…and that’s reflected in his low goal involvement.

If his efficiency carried on across a broader sample we’d then need to as a team focus very heavily on creating chances for him as you have said. Because we’d be wasting such a finisher.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm all for a tap-in. For a while, Baka was the best at them - being in front of goal, within 10 yards, to finish a move - it's a terrible habit.

Yeah the best strikers I’ve ever watched all were mostly in the right at the right time. That’s a skill. That goal poaching ability and pure finishing ability feels like something that’s drifted out the game. There is less of a place for a Le Fondre or a McGinlay or a Lineker nowadays which is sometimes a shame.

[GhostoftheBok]

I think there probably is a cut off for low sample rates. Similar to how King Arthur and Baka we excluded from the "Evatt's best forwards" list.. No idea what it would be though...

Yes, but if a player is doing it over 50+ games I'm happy calling it. In terms of working the trade you'd be happy with a much lower count than that, as Markham clearly was when we bought him - though you're judging on a lot more than that. The fact he's improving his finishing rate with us probably shows Chris got it right. If you wait forever you miss out. You get paid to make that call. Chris is earning his money.

Big question now is how we get him more chances. You can't ignore a strike rate like that, you have to try and use it.

If Vic shoots more, as he should, his average will go down. That's not really the issue. If it didn't he'd end up playing for Real Madrid. What matters is what his floor is and how many goals he can add to that. If 12-15 this season is that floor, with no penalties, that's a hell of a striker. It's above Charles' floor and the vast majority of other players at this level.

We're not currently making the best use of his runs and he's not adding a variety of goals, but he was at Burton. That means we can improve our service to him and he can improve his game. If both happen he's a Championship player in this team, without any issue. If neither do he'll stay a good league one player for us. Scoring goals a level up is obviously more difficult, but the goals he is scoring aren't ones you tend to lose too many of.

Interesting couple of year ahead for us and him.

[Worthy4England]

Sorry mate, wasn't the number of games I was suggesting should probably have a minimum. It was the number of shots..

[GhostoftheBok]

I think you could include an average over a larger sample than 18 to make it relevant. It’s quite a low sample is all.

If you look across his last hundred efforts and the efficiency was the same then statistically that would be pretty relevant.

I don’t have an issue with the concept or stat other than it certainly doesn’t tell the whole story. The other side of the stat is that he’s not having many efforts…and that’s reflected in his low goal involvement.

If his efficiency carried on across a broader sample we’d then need to as a team focus very heavily on creating chances for him as you have said. Because we’d be wasting such a finisher.

Like I say, it's not just the 18 this season, it's the last 18 months that track with it. He's improved this season, but I'm taking the worst numbers I can find for him over 18 months. He's about 1 in 3 for conversions over that period and about 4 from 10 this season.

I think he's just a very good finisher. You have to go to a much smaller sample size to find a bad one.

As I said to Worthy, as we try to add more variety to his goals that average will drop away somewhat; but there's a floor to his goals from those penalty box shots and I think it's a high one if we get the ball in. He's not Haaland or Kane, it's not just going to stay stupidly high no matter what he takes on; but if he can add 5 from range or angles a season and we can find him more often in the box you start looking at a 20-25 a season League One striker - based on him currently being on for 14-15. We saw him smash efforts in from outside the box for Burton.

It's entirely possible that won't happen. We have to try, though.

Maybe his first few games were a purple patch and his 3 in 14 since then is his real strike rate. In which case he finishes this season on 12. We'll see. If we'd made that assumption about Charles we'd never have seen the player he currently is.

[GhostoftheBok]

Sorry mate, wasn't the number of games I was suggesting should probably have a minimum. It was the number of shots..

Same thing remains, though. He's taken plenty of shots over the last 18 months for us to get a clear idea of what he does. You can't write it off to luck at this point. He just kicks it at the net quite well.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think you could include an average over a larger sample than 18 to make it relevant. It’s quite a low sample is all.

If you look across his last hundred efforts and the efficiency was the same then statistically that would be pretty relevant.

I don’t have an issue with the concept or stat other than it certainly doesn’t tell the whole story. The other side of the stat is that he’s not having many efforts…and that’s reflected in his low goal involvement.

If his efficiency carried on across a broader sample we’d then need to as a team focus very heavily on creating chances for him as you have said. Because we’d be wasting such a finisher.

Like I say, it's not just the 18 this season, it's the last 18 months that track with it. He's improved this season, but I'm taking the worst numbers I can find for him over 18 months. He's about 1 in 3 for conversions over that period and about 4 from 10 this season.

I think he's just a very good finisher. You have to go to a much smaller sample size to find a bad one.

As I said to Worthy, as we try to add more variety to his goals that average will drop away somewhat; but there's a floor to his goals from those penalty box shots and I think it's a high one if we get the ball in. He's not Haaland or Kane, it's not just going to stay stupidly high no matter what he takes on; but if he can add 5 from range or angles a season and we can find him more often in the box you start looking at a 20-25 a season League One striker - based on him currently being on for 14-15. We saw him smash efforts in from outside the box for Burton.

It's entirely possible that won't happen. We have to try, though.

Maybe his first few games were a purple patch and his 3 in 14 since then is his real strike rate. In which case he finishes this season on 12. We'll see. If we'd made that assumption about Charles we'd never have seen the player he currently is.

I think he’d score a fair few in say Wimbledon circa 1987 and that’s not an insult. I think he’s very good aerially in the box. But we barely use that attribute.

I don’t think he needs to score different goals we probably need to utilise his attributes better and the wing back stats posted earlier show why to an extent he is struggling for goals maybe.

My issue is that his touch and control and some of the basics aren’t there. And we are playing a target when I feel we’d be better with a more fluid option. Evatt seems to like a target man though we just need to know as a team how to use them better for me. It’s no good giving him service down the channels for example.

I also think Charles is a different beast. He anecdotally at least seems to have a lot of efforts, often self created. I don’t think he’s the best finisher around but he just creates and gets lots of chances and he’s good enough to score some of the hard ones as well as some more basic ones. It’s his ability, pace and movement that for me mean he’s very dangerous to play against. And his work rate.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I'm all for a tap-in. For a while, Baka was the best at them - being in front of goal, within 10 yards, to finish a move - it's a terrible habit.

Aye, I think Jimmy Greaves might have agreed with you..

Yeah the best strikers I’ve ever watched all were mostly in the right at the right time. That’s a skill. That goal poaching ability and pure finishing ability feels like something that’s drifted out the game. There is less of a place for a Le Fondre or a McGinlay or a Lineker nowadays which is sometimes a shame.

Nested your responses together, as it's an interesting topic.

I think some players still have that poaching ability; what's largely gone is the type of player that *only* had that ability, who would be characterised as loafing about in the danger zone waiting for chances to be made. Perhaps 10 or 20 years ago Dion would have been similar, but he's remodelled into a phenomenally hard worker.

In truth they've been gradually going out of style for a while. Lineker initially springs to mind as a great example of a striker but he got a fair few of his goals from teams using his pace to beat an offside trap and hare through on goal. Ian Rush was more of the same (and benefited from the utterly brilliant Dalglish behind him).

Then in the early years of this century you had the shift from a front two to the single point-striker. That could be a quicksilver line-breaker like Fernando Torres but more often became a Didier Drogba, a new-model target man (although that rather reductive description does a disservice to Drogba's ability). Haaland has reinstated that model, but he's frankly a freak.

It's partially instructive to look back on England's "main" strikers over the last 40 years to see the progression. Lineker was a swift sniffer. Shearer was a bit of a throwback in his physicality (I remember being delighted to see him compared in his prime to Lofty) but essentially a target man who scored (a lot). Owen was another pacy goal-grabber. Rooney was far more complicated but unarguably more of an all-rounder than those predecessors. Kane, without me enraging Ghost again, maximised his abilities and thus covered up his glaring shortfall by modern standards - pace.

What Walker, McGinlay and Le Fondre had was the nous to be in the right place and the calmness to convert. And as time continues its incessant onward march, we handily forget the ones they missed and happily remember the ones they didn't. To me, Dion is not quite yet in that "reliable" camp for scoring - he sometimes needs sighters and, frankly, misses sitters - but what he shares with them is an unflappable self-belief. And as I say, he brings far far more to the team than "just" goals, even if they are the very stuff of victory.

[GhostoftheBok]

Dion...misses sitters

I'm not over it yet. I can't...

[boltonboris]

Someone with access to it and more energy than I have for it….

Since Vic made his first start.

-League wins or points, or PPG whatever is best with him in the starting XI vs Without
-Team goals with and without him on the pitch

[boltonboris]

I’d discount cup matches, as EFL trophy games against U21 teams etc cannot be considered the same calibre as league games

[GhostoftheBok]

Someone with access to it and more energy than I have for it….

Since Vic made his first start.

-League wins or points, or PPG whatever is best with him in the starting XI vs Without
-Team goals with and without him on the pitch

From starts.

With since signing: 1.95 PPG
Generally since he signed: 1.98 PPG

This season with: 2.11
This season generally: 2.08
Without this season: 2 PPG

Difference is first months was 1.8 with and 1.88 without. Dragged down by starting the three hardest fixtures for us at the time - Owls away, Ipswich and Wycombe away.

Bod this season: 1.5 PPG.
Dan: 2 PPG.
Dion: 2.18 PPG.

What matters is this:

Vic and Dion as a pairing this season: 2.25 PPG

[GhostoftheBok]

Worth noting that if a theoretical Vic and Dion partnership played 46 games over a season at that rate they'd score 103.5 points.

The most points ever scored in a League One season is 103.

So that's what's technically known as "quite good" as points returns go.

[boltonboris]

Gracias GOTB. Kind of reaffirms my point that they are the best partnership for the team

[GhostoftheBok]

Gracias GOTB. Kind of reaffirms my point that they are the best partnership for the team

I feel they're the best pairing at the minute by a distance.

When Bod first got here he and Charles averaged 2.1 PPG as a pairing.

If some of our squad players can start to hit their levels in the second half of the season it'll hopefully just snowball.

When you look at where we are right now and who is playing within themselves you have to be hopeful.

[GhostoftheBok]

It's a shame what injuries have taken out of Bod.

That first period of 6 months he was scoring at a rate of 1 goal every 146 minutes.

Since then it's a goal every 429 minutes.

Overall it's 1 every 231 minutes.

Too few minutes on the pitch for a player of his quality.

His last two campaigns' goals per minute rate is now close to Nlundulu's, who only has 2 league goals. Their combined GA per minute is almost identical. I think there's 5 or 6 minutes in it. Which, given Dan's injury issues, probably means we shouldn't write him off.

Fitness is a bugger. If Bod had been fully fit last campaign we'd probably nave gone up.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

It's a shame what injuries have taken out of Bod.

That first period of 6 months he was scoring at a rate of 1 goal every 146 minutes.

Since then it's a goal every 429 minutes.

Overall it's 1 every 231 minutes.

Too few minutes on the pitch for a player of his quality.

His last two campaigns' goals per minute rate is now close to Nlundulu's, who only has 2 league goals. Their combined GA per minute is almost identical. I think there's 5 or 6 minutes in it. Which, given Dan's injury issues, probably means we shouldn't write him off.

Fitness is a bugger. If Bod had been fully fit last campaign we'd probably nave gone up.

In his first six months we had four good strikers jostling for two spaces. Dion and Dapo usually the starters but with Bod and Baka bringing genuine threats, albeit differing, off the bench. (We also had Kachunga.) We scored a lot of late goals.

Last season was different. Dion emerged as undisputed top dog by some distance. Dapo drifted and left. Baka lost confidence and left. Kacha worked hard but, well. And Bod had a succession of injuries - brusied foot in pre-season, hamstring for a month in Sep/Oct, illness in Nov, nose problems in Dec and then ankle-knack from Jan to Jun; even after coming back from that he tweaked a hammy in pre-season and then just couldn't get past Ade.

I like Bod, he seems a really good bloke and arguably one of the best footballing brains at the club. Would be lovely if he could get back fit and firing, but I suspect it might be as a sub for now. Ade to run them ragged, then Bod to drag 'em round and drop into the holes.

But we will also need – and without being funny, I had genuinely half-forgotten this - a fourth striker, with Dan out for the season. If Bod is a sub I would like that player to have pace or the oppo could just push up, which will hinder our midfield dominance.

[The_Gun]

Is Dan out for the season?