Good to see Baldock back

Easy 10 · Feb 17, 2016

Tony Meolas Loan Spell said:
:doffscap:

I do think Hemed should be classed as average (as opposed to poor) because its his first season and he is only 3 behind Rhodes as it stands.

But then Hemed is playing in a team that went unbeaten for nearly half a season, and is sitting 3 points off top spot. I'm not saying he hasn't contributed to that - he has. But you'd think he'd have notched a few more than 8 this season. He needs to step up and start weighing in with a few more, especially now we have the likes of Knocky on one side, Murphy in decent form on the other, and the return of KLL. Not to mention the season-long form of Kayal behind him in particular.

Hemed's bagged a couple recently, lets see if he can keep it up. 15 games to go, fitness allowing he should be getting another half a dozen at least this season.

Easy 10 · Feb 17, 2016

Munkfish said:
Dunk hasnt scored once this season. Baldock has One. Does this mean he has improved.

Looking forward to Baldock banging in a few goals for us and this thread being bumped.

Hope you're right of course. But history suggests that we probably won't be measuring Baldocks contribution to the team in terms of a goals return.

Easy 10 · Feb 17, 2016

Should probably have included Wilsons 3 in 12 (0.25). I certainly wouldn't put him in the "piss poor" bracket, its not a bad return for a player who's only just turned 20, there's plenty of potential there for him to become a prolific striker. He's clearly not there yet though.

Seagulls over Essex · Feb 17, 2016

I don't think he has been missed at all. His return will l have no impact whatsoever on our performances.

sussex_guy2k2 · Feb 17, 2016

Easy 10 said:
Should probably have included Wilsons 3 in 12 (0.25). I certainly wouldn't put him in the "piss poor" bracket, its not a bad return for a player who's only just turned 20, there's plenty of potential there for him to become a prolific striker. He's clearly not there yet though.

I think therein lies the key point to a lot of the statistics you put forward (good work by the way). There's a context behind each individual case such as Baldock playing wide left for most of the second half of last season and running the channels for much of this season, Barnes being played wide, Zamora/Hemed/Ulloa/COG being the focal points of our attack, Wilson being ill for much of his time here, Zamora being born around the year 1000BC...

Basically, there's usually always a context behind these numbers that people conveniently overlook so that they can bash a player they don't like/deem not good enough.

Saying that, I always find it very strange that strikers get judged on one statistic alone whereas no other position does - it's like we're living in 1950s Britain and fans' understanding of the game hasn't developed.

samtheseagull · Feb 17, 2016

B.W. said:
Yes, but 1 striker does have to score enough goals. Sam B has 2, Hemed 8. As I said before, given their respective game time, neither is scoring enough. The comparison with CMS is a red herring, but nobody said he is a better player, just that he scored more (which is a fact). You are therefore the one offering the laughable comments.

So if Baldock is making the space for Hemed to score, Is he not worth being in the team as he is not scoring?
Take Heskey, he had a level at the top without ever scoring a lot of goals.

lizard · Feb 17, 2016

Do Skalat and Knockeart need their boots cleaning?

Ninja Elephant · Feb 17, 2016

sussex_guy2k2 said:
I think therein lies the key point to a lot of the statistics you put forward (good work by the way). There's a context behind each individual case such as Baldock playing wide left for most of the second half of last season and running the channels for much of this season, Barnes being played wide, Zamora/Hemed/Ulloa/COG being the focal points of our attack, Wilson being ill for much of his time here, Zamora being born around the year 1000BC...

Basically, there's usually always a context behind these numbers that people conveniently overlook so that they can bash a player they don't like/deem not good enough.

Saying that, I always find it very strange that strikers get judged on one statistic alone whereas no other position does - it's like we're living in 1950s Britain and fans' understanding of the game hasn't developed.

It isn't the first time this "understanding of the game" line has been trotted out in this thread, but it's about time it was screwed up and thrown in the bin. Do you think Pep Guardiola "understands" the game any better than Sir Alex Ferguson did? Or Carlo Ancelotti, Jose Mourinho, Arsene Wenger, etc? They all have different ideas about football and they all "understand" it in a different way so who is to say what is the right way and what is the wrong way? When a club pays £2million for a striker it expects that striker to score the odd goal here and there. Baldock and many other of our striker signings have taken the phrase "here and there" far too literally and helped themselves to a pathetic number of goals. Every position is measured differently and while it's fair to say that Baldock spent a lot of time out left last season, that was pretty much exclusively because he wasn't scoring any goals anyway so we didn't lose anything through playing him there. And what he did was prove he's no Ashley Barnes, who himself is a fairly ordinary yard stick.

Hughton · Feb 17, 2016

Hemed will score more with Baldock

1066familyman · Feb 17, 2016

Ninja Elephant said:
It isn't the first time this "understanding of the game" line has been trotted out in this thread, but it's about time it was screwed up and thrown in the bin. Do you think Pep Guardiola "understands" the game any better than Sir Alex Ferguson did? Or Carlo Ancelotti, Jose Mourinho, Arsene Wenger, etc? They all have different ideas about football and they all "understand" it in a different way so who is to say what is the right way and what is the wrong way? When a club pays £2million for a striker it expects that striker to score the odd goal here and there. Baldock and many other of our striker signings have taken the phrase "here and there" far too literally and helped themselves to a pathetic number of goals. Every position is measured differently and while it's fair to say that Baldock spent a lot of time out left last season, that was pretty much exclusively because he wasn't scoring any goals anyway so we didn't lose anything through playing him there. And what he did was prove he's no Ashley Barnes, who himself is a fairly ordinary yard stick.

Better get used to the patronising - "you don't watch the game properly" - on here if you dare criticise Baldock. It's par for the course unfortunately.

In reality it's just as you say. It's a game of opinions and having a different opinion doesn't necessarily mean a lack of understanding of the game.

Brighton TID · Feb 17, 2016

I'm just glad we have a manager who sees past the typical one dimensional argument of his goal tally and sees the contribution that he makes in linking the midfield to the attack playing in the 'hole'.

Ninja Elephant · Feb 17, 2016

1066familyman said:
Better get used to the patronising - "you don't watch the game properly" - on here if you dare criticise Baldock. It's par for the course unfortunately.

In reality it's just as you say. It's a game of opinions and having a different opinion doesn't necessarily mean a lack of understanding of the game.

I think it goes back to the earlier point that everyone assesses football differently, I don't for a moment think my opinions are worth more than someone else's but I do believe that where you view the game from makes a difference to your perspective on the matches and the performances of individuals. You can only really assess the players on what you see and everyone will see something different - personally, I don't mind a striker not scoring too many goals if he's doing something tangible for the team but despite all the talk of Baldock's workrate, I honestly don't think he does anything to justify being in the team.

Brighton TID · Feb 17, 2016

Ninja Elephant said:
I think it goes back to the earlier point that everyone assesses football differently, I don't for a moment think my opinions are worth more than someone else's but I do believe that where you view the game from makes a difference to your perspective on the matches and the performances of individuals. You can only really assess the players on what you see and everyone will see something different - personally, I don't mind a striker not scoring too many goals if he's doing something tangible for the team but despite all the talk of Baldock's workrate, I honestly don't think he does anything to justify being in the team.

Therefore, you don't have any faith in CH who played Bald cock constantly until the got injured.

dangull · Feb 17, 2016

Brighton TID said:
Therefore, you don't have any faith in CH who played Bald cock constantly until the got injured.

Steady on, he might be reading this thread

kevo · Feb 17, 2016

Brighton TID said:
Therefore, you don't have any faith in CH who played Bald cock constantly until the got injured.

Precisely. CH knows best.

Our record (all games) with Baldock in the starting line-up this season:

W 9 D 6 L 0.

Our record (all games) without Baldock in the starting line-up:

W 7 D 6 L 6

Lincolnshire Seagull · Feb 17, 2016

I enjoyed the game and the performance of all the starting eleven yesterday. However, and much as I dislike criticising our players, I'm afraid Baldock was very poor when he came on. He barely touched the ball and didn't really contribute much in any way. It was his first game after a long injury layoff so I am hoping he will improve. And he was having to play the lone striker role which is not his strong point. It was hard to see why he came on rather than Zamora, it was too important a match to just give him some game time. But CH knows better than me, and we got a good result. As an aside, I do wish we wouldn't time-wasre so blatantly - it must give the opposition the idea that we are scared of them.

portslade seagull · Feb 17, 2016

He just needs to get match fit

1066familyman · Feb 17, 2016

kevo said:
Precisely. CH knows best.

Our record (all games) with Baldock in the starting line-up this season:Hu

W 9 D 6 L 0.

Our record (all games) without Baldock in the starting line-up:

W 7 D 6 L 6

Do me a favour. That's half the story and you know it. There are several much more crucial factors behind those stats than whether Baldock was playing or not.

kevo · Feb 17, 2016

1066familyman said:
Do me a favour. That's half the story and you know it. There are several much more crucial factors behind those stats than whether Baldock was playing or not.

So you think Hughton was wrong to start him in all those games - not a single one of which we lost? It must be nice to know you have more football knowledge than our manager.

1066familyman · Feb 17, 2016

kevo said:
So you think Hughton was wrong to start him in all those games - not a single one of which we lost? It must be nice to know you have more football knowledge than our manager.

Yes of course, I have more football knowledge than CH :facepalm:

Same tired old retorts when someone has a differing opinion.

The stats you quoted don't paint the full picture and well you know it. They do very little to support your view. If you believe Baldock is a good player at this level then that's fine, it's your opinion, just as I have mine. No need to use dodgy stats to try to justify your opinion.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Good to see Baldock back

Brain dead MUG SHEEP

Brain dead MUG SHEEP

Brain dead MUG SHEEP

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-hung member

Doctor Elephant

New member

Radio User

New member

Doctor Elephant

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Radio User

Well-known member

Radio User

Share this page