Ollie Watkins

[Smirker]

16 goals in 40 games is not a "poor return" for a top division striker

And you think the same about 17 in 54?

No. If I did, I'd have said "16 goals in 40 games and 17 goals in 54 games is not a "poor return" for a top division striker".

But I didn't say that.

So the "over the course of a season he's never had a poor goal return" was wrong and I was right when I criticised his goalscoring then.

And yes I'm aware you didn't post that.

We agree then.

17 in 54 - poor.

[cdbearsfan]

You've got him cornered, now! That will be the last we see of Smirker on this thread, you mark my words.

[Smirker]

Can we stop this? One guy has a (wilfully) eccentric view of the stats, everyone else disagrees. We're not discussing Watkins anymore.

I'm OK with dropping it but as you saw it wasn't me that brought it up.

If I'm not brought into it again I won't bring it up.

Sounds fair to me.

 

[Monty]

Can we stop this? One guy has a (wilfully) eccentric view of the stats, everyone else disagrees. We're not discussing Watkins anymore.

I'm OK with dropping it but as you saw it wasn't me that brought it up.

If I'm not brought into it again I won't bring it up.

Sounds fair to me.

 

I'd say just rise above it mate. You've explained your point in, I would say, exquisite detail, and if people don't agree with you by now I'd say now is the time we all shook hands and went back to our wives, who've been waiting by the desert this whole time, having a drink.

[Skipper_The_Eyechild]

Can we stop this? One guy has a (wilfully) eccentric view of the stats, everyone else disagrees. We're not discussing Watkins anymore.

I've said this before, there is no point in engaging with this debate. I know we're all wasting our time on here but this is to the extreme. There's no point.

[Sexual Ealing]

The trouble is there's only one smirker and lots of people bring him up, and he then feels the need (and has the right) to defend himself to each poster and on and on and on it goes. The only solution is to stop mentioning his opinion of Watkins when he's not said anything or been involved.

[Skipper_The_Eyechild]

I don't disagree with any of that.

[Monty]

He has the right to defend himself, and he has the right to exist.

[Sexual Ealing]

If anything, it'll give my more intermittent, caveated, reverse-ferretable takes room to breathe once he shanks his first one into the Trinity come August!

[Dave]

If anything, it'll give my more intermittent, caveated, reverse-ferretable takes room to breathe once he shanks his first one into the Trinity come August!

Wouldn't worry, you sold him to West Ham for £10m because nobody else would want him

(winky)

[paul_e]

I really don't want to carry this on but 17 in 54 is in no way poor given it's just shy of 1 in 3. Over a league season that's 11-12 goals which is a middling return in the premier league. Under 10 is where you start getting into poor territory and 15+ is good and will generally get into the top 10 scorers for the season. The 20 a season striker thing is responsible for a lot of this because this century it's been rare to have more than a couple of those a season and yet pretty much every striker gets held to that standard still.

[Sexual Ealing]

If anything, it'll give my more intermittent, caveated, reverse-ferretable takes room to breathe once he shanks his first one into the Trinity come August!

Wouldn't worry, you sold him to West Ham for £10m because nobody else would want him

(winky)

That much?!

[Dave]

16 goals in 40 games is not a "poor return" for a top division striker

And you think the same about 17 in 54?

No. If I did, I'd have said "16 goals in 40 games and 17 goals in 54 games is not a "poor return" for a top division striker".

But I didn't say that.

So the "over the course of a season he's never had a poor goal return" was wrong and I was right when I criticised his goalscoring then.

And yes I'm aware you didn't post that.

We agree then.

17 in 54 - poor.

I think that 24/25 is his one anomalous season, when he, and many others weren't as good as they normally are.

If that had been the limit of your criticism then I'd have been with you.

But then you went and spoiled it all, by saying something stupid like a near one-in-two record across two seasons was a poor return.

And I ended up back with your detractors.

[aj2k77]

What's this 17 in 54? He's scored 16 in 36. 16 the season before that, 19 before that and 15 before that. He's not a 12 a season scorer.

[Sexual Ealing]

From another thread, but perhaps food for thought!

I do the bodybuilding