Liverpool FC Forum

[Judge]

thats what i heard on the news also woof

[policy]

One of my buddies (a La Liga fan) swears that Anelka is more talented than Henry, but that his stint at Real Madrid messed with his head. Can anyone agree/disagree that he is more talented than Henry without using just statistics? Just wondering.

(I can already see the rolling eyes, but does anyone have anything to say beside what is common knowledge??)

[woof woof !]

One of my buddies (a La Liga fan) swears that Anelka is more talented than Henry, but that his stint at Real Madrid messed with his head. Can anyone agree/disagree that he is more talented than Henry without using just statistics? Just wondering.

(I can already see the rolling eyes, but does anyone have anything to say beside what is common knowledge??)

Depends what you mean by "common knowledge"

And trying to establish a valid comparison of players without involving stats (and that includes ,age ,pace , and other physical attributes ) is a pointless excercise .

[Ace Ventura]

Anelka would guarantee goals imo, and if the fee was 5 million (what newcastle have offered) then it would defo be worth a look.
I cant see it now though as it looks like Rafa wants different attacking options.
Crouch or Anelka would look an easy decision, but with Cisse and Anelka being pretty similar, he would probably be justified going for someone who will hold the ball up and bring others into play.
But if its Crouch at 8 mill and Anelka at 5, there is no contest.
We cant allow ourselves to be constantly ripped off.

[stmichael]

One of my buddies (a La Liga fan) swears that Anelka is more talented than Henry, but that his stint at Real Madrid messed with his head. Can anyone agree/disagree that he is more talented than Henry without using just statistics? Just wondering.

all i'll say is that is tells you about the calibre of arsene wenger when you consider what he turned the two of them into. anelka was signed for less than a million and was sold for £22m. henry was signed for £11m and is probably now worth somewhere near four times that.

i've always rated anelka. i just think that he needs a manager to appreciate him. infact, in january i was advocating signing him because (a) he wasn't champions league cup tied and (b) he knows the premiership inside out. as hugely talented as morientes is, he's hardly set the world on fire yet has he?

[woof woof !]

Anelka was only with us for five months and yet as recently as last December Stevie Gerrard described him as "one of the best strikers in the world I have played with ,he was on fire during his time with us ."

After he left us and went to Man City he helped them restablish themselves as a credible prem side with 14 goals  and a number of "assists".
I'm sure if the player had remained with Arsenal in his youth or even us a few years later he would be making as many headlines as Henry, and for the right reasons 

[policy]

And trying to establish a valid comparison of players without involving stats (and that includes ,age ,pace , and other physical attributes ) is a pointless excercise.

Hmmmm.

Mark Twain stated, "There are liars, damned liars, and statistics".

Statistics are often very useful, but can with ease be manipulated to tell only a part of the truth and therefore be even more heinous than a lie.

We don't need to get into a long discussion about unstated and unrecorded qualities. But those who rely only on statistics to price players are often in danger of overpaying.

Thanks for the information guys.

[7_Kewell]

Anelka was only with us for five months and yet as recently as last December Stevie Gerrard described him as "one of the best strikers in the world I have played with ,he was on fire during his time with us ."

but he didn't score many goals....he played over 20 games and only got a couple.

[JC_81]

One of my buddies (a La Liga fan) swears that Anelka is more talented than Henry, but that his stint at Real Madrid messed with his head. Can anyone agree/disagree that he is more talented than Henry without using just statistics? Just wondering.

(I can already see the rolling eyes, but does anyone have anything to say beside what is common knowledge??)

Funny you should use that comparison, because I've always thought Anelka and Henry were quite similar players.  Both are probably as quick as one another, both good finishers and both equally cr@p in the air!!

Henry however has something extra which Anelka doesn't, and thats the ability to create goals for himself and others.  As well as scoring a lot of goals, Henry gets a lot of assists also, which Anelka doesn't.  Henry is also capable of scoring free-kicks or long range shots, which Anelka does not.

I remember seeing Anelka playing for France against England just after they'd won the World cup, and I think Anelka scored twice in a 2-0 win.  If he'd stayed at Arsenal then for at least a couple of years instead of going to Real, then I think we may now have been talking about him as one of the world's top strikers. 

As a 17yr old at Arsenal he had more talent than Henry did at Monaco at that stage IMO.  But too  many changes of club at the stage of his career when he needed stability ruined his progress.  Henry is a good example of what Anelka could have been.

[woof woof !]

And trying to establish a valid comparison of players without involving stats (and that includes ,age ,pace , and other physical attributes ) is a pointless excercise.

Hmmmm.

Mark Twain stated, "There are liars, damned liars, and statistics".

Statistics are often very useful, but can with ease be manipulated to tell only a part of the truth and therefore be even more heinous than a lie.

We don't need to get into a long discussion about unstated and unrecorded qualities. But those who rely only on statistics to price players are often in danger of overpaying.

Without measuring a players performance you are reduced to giving an opinion on an athlete that would only be as valid as the next mans , even if his opinion was completely the opposite of your own.
.
If someone says to you "I think so and so is world class ,he constantly goes past people and gets in superb crosses . " What is the validity of that statement based on ? How many times did our someone see the player go past people ? (statistic) how many games was the player seen to do this in ? (statistic ) How many attempts did he make to "past" people ? (statistic) If he went past 5 times but failed and lost the ball in 20 other attempts (statistic) is he a good player ? or just a willing one ?

Statistics aren't everything but those that chose to ignore them  usually go through life with their head up their ar'se.

[Judge]

And trying to establish a valid comparison of players without involving stats (and that includes ,age ,pace , and other physical attributes ) is a pointless excercise.

Hmmmm.

Mark Twain stated, "There are liars, damned liars, and statistics".

Statistics are often very useful, but can with ease be manipulated to tell only a part of the truth and therefore be even more heinous than a lie.

We don't need to get into a long discussion about unstated and unrecorded qualities. But those who rely only on statistics to price players are often in danger of overpaying.

Without measuring a players performance you are reduced to giving an opinion on an athlete that would only be as valid as the next mans , even if his opinion was completely the opposite of your own.
.
If someone says to you "I think so and so is world class ,he constantly goes past people and gets in superb crosses . " What is the validity of that statement based on ? How many times did our someone see the player go past people ? (statistic) how many games was the player seen to do this in ? (statistic ) How many attempts did he make to "past" people ? (statistic) If he went past 5 times but failed and lost the ball in 20 other attempts (statistic) is he a good player ? or just a willing one ?

Statistics aren't everything but those that chose to ignore them  usually go through life with their head up their ar'se.

are you talking about statitician banana or AB?


statistics are nice, but i go on previous form and form at the moment. indeed, new players do need time to bed in, but you can usually make an intelligent assuption if someone fits in

so on that note - that leaves me out then 

[The Ace1983]

Statistics aren't everything but those that chose to ignore them  usually go through life with their head up their ar'se.

How Zen.   

But I do certainly agree. Statistics are important and must be used in comparing players, but for strikers, surely the only important criteria are goals per game, assists and time spent injured. How can these lie?

As for Anelka, it would be more accurate to say that before his move to Real Madrid he was beginning to realise the potential that he had for becoming a better striker than Thierry Henry, but because of the enormous pressure put on him due his giant fee, huge wages, expectations for playing for the best team around with some of the most remarkable players, he ultimatly failed to realise that potential in its entirity. So for the sake of this argument, it would indeed be wiser to check statistics and remove the head from the ar.se

 

[stmichael]

when it comes to strikers, it's all about stats. forget whether they're an outstanding all round player or not, if they can stick the ball in the net on a regular basis then that's good enough for me.

[kaz the kopite]

a good experienced striker is what we need!

1.ilahan mansiz

2.nuno gomez

3.pallermo

4.mista

or of course kuijt!

what do u guy`s think? which one?

[woof woof !]

statistics are nice, but i go on previous form and form at the moment.

And form is based on performance ,and performance is measured with the use of .............................. (see where I'm going here Judge ?          )