The Arsenal Thread XXII

I think second assist stats would be interesting to see as it gives more of an indication just how involved a player is in goals. However those are usually really difficult to find online and the only way to really do it is by watching all the goals scored, would be pretty confident that Fabregas and Hazard/Oscar would have involvement in 4 or 5 more goals than they are awarded officially and probably the same for Sanchez.

Might do that at some point.

Also as brilliant as he's been, when the BBC et al say he's had a 30+ goal season, whilst he's very close, it's not strictly true as their including goals scored for England u21's, which is blatant stat padding to hype him up more by the media

Harry Kane on the other-hand http://www.whoscored.com/Players/83532/Fixtures/Harry-Kane, had 16 goals up until that weekend with 3 assists, although 5 of those were against Besiktas and Asteras Tripolis in the Europa League as well as one goal and an assist in the domestic cup competitions. Since that weekend he's scored 9 goals with 3 assists including one hat-trick against Leicester at home. What surprised me about Kane is that, as brilliant as he's been judging by when he's scored it tends to be in spells. He scored 5 in 3 games against West Brom, Liverpool and Arsenal, then only got 1 in 5 games, then 5 in another 3 games and since then one goal and one assist in his last 5.
Also as brilliant as he's been, when the BBC et al say he's had a 30+ goal season, whilst he's very close, it's not strictly true as their including goals scored for England u21's, which is blatant stat padding to hype him up more by the media. When have they ever included International, let alone non-senior international stats, when discussing any other player?

By all quantifiable methods, he's had the best season of anyone in the league (though this doesn't make him the best player).

Don't know how reliable they are but I really doubt it. I'm pretty sure we've been linked with him before as well

Posted from TSR Mobile

Since when is goals 'all quantifiable methods'?

By that I mean judging by statistics in terms of goals and its relativity to the team (aka Kane has won Spurs 22 points, compared to say Hazard who has won 11 points) and the proportion of the teams goals scored (would wager Kane has one of the highest percentages out of the top teams for this).

That isn't conclusive at all lol, and again that comes down to goals. You realise there's 'quantifiable methods' that involve things other than goals, right?

Probably bad wording more than anything, and in any case it was just a retort to Sheddy who was downplaying Kane's achievements a little bit in my opinion.

And he's my back up striker hehe

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Dunno why I bothered replying to you tbh

By that I mean judging by statistics in terms of goals and its relativity to the team (aka Kane has won Spurs 22 points, compared to say Hazard who has won 11 points) and the proportion of the teams goals scored (would wager Kane has one of the highest percentages out of the top teams for this).

How do you work out points won individually. Obviously three goals for a winner, but if they scored the first goal and a team won 2-1 do you give them 3 points, 1 point as without that goal their team may have drawn or even lost. What about when a team is winning 1-0 and they score to make it 2-0. Do you give them 3 points, 1 point, 0.5 points or 0 points? While I think that method is a good way of pointing out how influential a player has been over a season it's too ambigious.

I agree it's ambigious in that regard, and they work it out out with the influential goals (aka to make it 2-0 in a 2-0 win won't be given points), so it does give some sort of indicator though.
Right call was made anyway, Hazard has been the best player in the league for the best team.

[video="youtube;DtAO-XgpV1c"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtAO-XgpV1c[/video]

Anyway check out this saltiness. That's some good lemon tears.

That guy is pathetic. Could think of so many reasons why everything he said is horse sh*te.

Don't know if these two nonces are known by Arsenal fans on Twitter but they are a waste of bandwidth.

If you're a true football fan you'd respect your opposition, sadly for fans of "big clubs" this is not the case

If you're a true football fan, you respect opposition that is deserving. The big clubs are not as deserving of respect because it goes against the spirit of the game to just buy your trophies. Yes, it's within the rules, and yes, there's nothing technically against it, but when you are more willing to spend £30m on an average foreigner with a big name than develop your own players, it's going against a sense of fair play. Arsene really kickstarted the idea of bringing in foreigners to play in the domestic league en-masse as far as I know (he was the first manager to play a full XI of non-English players), but even then he has always held training youth players as crucial to a club, and these days there is an English resurgence. In that sense, Spurs, Southampton and co deserve some levels of respect for that particular reason, whereas City and Chelsea less so.

I'm not going to say Arsenal are some kind of perfectly moral club, or that we are somehow more 'classy' than others, because lord knows our fans can be some of the scummiest, and whilst spending has been somewhat non-existent in the past decade, Wenger has always seemed to favour the notion of importing Europeans (particularly the Spanish and French), but there is no reason we should be forced to respect the opposition or else we aren't true football fans (we should respect someone like Bournemouth more than someone like City).