Anelka Vs Klasnic - You decide.

doffcocker wrote:Most people tend to agree that playing with Klasnic was tantamount to playing with ten men, minus the fact he averaged about a goal every four matches.
Let's imagine for a minute he scored one goal every game. That's four times as many goals as he actually scored for us and with a lot more regularity, as he would often score two together then go months without scoring one.
If given the choice, would you start every match with a one goal advantage and a one man disadvantage? I don't think most people would, yet a lot of people seem to think we missed a trick not starting Klasnic every match.

Obviously Anelka was a million times the player Klasnic was. Klasnic is phenomenally overrated at Bolton and I don't imagine us being an worse off had we never signed him.

What a load of shit.

Klasnic hardly started. 1 goal in 4 is pretty good when you only played for 50 minutes over those 4 games.

You dickhead.

Are we comparing careers or for bolton


Anelka obviously was the better striker overall but i do get scotts point


Klasnic was clinical and how many of his games where from the bench. Probably more than half. Anelka will have played every game from the start when fit. To be fair, this is like comparing ole gunnar solskjaer to ruud van nistleroy (sp. Wank, sorry)

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:Most people tend to agree that playing with Klasnic was tantamount to playing with ten men, minus the fact he averaged about a goal every four matches.
Let's imagine for a minute he scored one goal every game. That's four times as many goals as he actually scored for us and with a lot more regularity, as he would often score two together then go months without scoring one.
If given the choice, would you start every match with a one goal advantage and a one man disadvantage? I don't think most people would, yet a lot of people seem to think we missed a trick not starting Klasnic every match.

Obviously Anelka was a million times the player Klasnic was. Klasnic is phenomenally overrated at Bolton and I don't imagine us being an worse off had we never signed him.

What a load of shit.

Klasnic hardly started. 1 goal in 4 is pretty good when you only played for 50 minutes over those 4 games.

You dickhead.

I understand it's difficult to be objective about a player who had a lot of class in front of goal but I ask you to try.

I've mentioned several times on here that Klasnic actually had a damn long run in the team under Coyle where he went a number of (winnable) games without scoring and we lost them all.
Clowns like you would have people believe we were always an attacking threat with Klasnic on the field. And it couldn't be further from the truth. He scored some good goals, but spent most of the time completely isolated, doing fuck all.

Klasnic
44 starts
40 sub appearances
24 goals
This is including cup games

Anelka
58 starts
3 sub appearances
23 goals
Also including cup games

y2johnny wrote:Klasnic
44 starts
40 sub appearances
24 goals
This is including cup games

Anelka
58 starts
3 sub appearances
23 goals
Also including cup games

So Klasnic has a better strike rate, that's what I'm getting at.

Strike rate = Better striker.

scottjames30 wrote:

y2johnny wrote:Klasnic
44 starts
40 sub appearances
24 goals
This is including cup games

Anelka
58 starts
3 sub appearances
23 goals
Also including cup games

So Klasnic has a better strike rate, that's what I'm getting at.

Strike rate = Better striker.

i was trying to find something that told you the total minutes played as that would tell you, but even so, it only means he was a better striker FOR US.  I don't think anyone can argue with Anelka's pedigree was a lot better overall

All I said was, Johnny lad , that Megson brought in the best Bolton striker we've ever had.

Thanks for proving my point, Anelka had a better career, no question.

But nobody (I don't think) can prove he wasn't our best striker with facts.

Klasnic scored more goals in less games, in a shitter team than Anelka.

Anelka is the better striker, he'd outscore Klasnic every single time.

bwfc1874 wrote:Anelka is the better striker, he'd outscore Klasnic every single time.

Why didn't he then?

Er, he did.

If you look at those stats, Klasnic figured in 84 games for us, whereas Anelka only played in 61.

But there's only one goal in it in terms of how many they each scored.

So Anelka is the better striker.

Breadman wrote:Er, he did.

If you look at those stats, Klasnic figured in 84 games for us, whereas Anelka only played in 61.

But there's only one goal in it in terms of how many they each scored.

So Anelka is the better striker.

Er, he didn't, because the 20 games he came on as a sub was in the last five mins of games.

What was 100 mins, so Klasnic is a better striker.

One game, Klasnic came on in the 90th min, scored then got sent off.

So it's even less than that.

Who had more assists?
And what was the total time on the pitch for each player?

Breadman wrote:Er, he did.

If you look at those stats, Klasnic figured in 84 games for us, whereas Anelka only played in 61.

But there's only one goal in it in terms of how many they each scored.

So Anelka is the better striker.

Anelka had more actual time on the pitch so Klasnic was more productive in terms of scoring goals.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Breadman wrote:Er, he did.

If you look at those stats, Klasnic figured in 84 games for us, whereas Anelka only played in 61.

But there's only one goal in it in terms of how many they each scored.

So Anelka is the better striker.

Anelka had more actual time on the pitch so Klasnic was more productive in terms of scoring goals.

In order to calculate the strike rate (if that is the deciding factor which I personally don't think it is) we need to know the exact total number of minutes on the pitch for each player. Divide that by goals scored. Then do the same for assists and pass completion percentage and hey presto - conclusive proof that Klasnic was a lazy titty-liner. Entertaining to watch when he wasn't giving the ball away though.

The only argument you could make is that Klasnic was a better finisher (he wasn't), anything else is absolutely ridiculous. Anelka was better in every single way.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Breadman wrote:Er, he did.

If you look at those stats, Klasnic figured in 84 games for us, whereas Anelka only played in 61.

But there's only one goal in it in terms of how many they each scored.

So Anelka is the better striker.

Anelka had more actual time on the pitch so Klasnic was more productive in terms of scoring goals.

Stupid comment by a stupid person.

For a start, Johnny's stats don't agree with what it says on Soccerbase (no offence Johnny) as they have him down as coming off the bench 50 times. It's also a wild exaggeration when people say Klasnic would only come on for five minutes here and there; he was often brought on early in the second half. Secondly Klasnic started god knows how many cup matches against weakened opposition. Anelka played nearly all of his football for us in the league. Also, if you look at the goals Anelka scored for us, there's no way Klasnic would have had the pace, control and technique to put them away. You can just imagine Klasnic chasing after a long ball out to the left wing, running with it, teasing an Arsenal full back, coming inside and blasting it into the top corner can't you! All Klasnic knew was hope for a lucky bounce and have a shot, hence his goals were so sporadic.

doffcocker wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Breadman wrote:Er, he did.

If you look at those stats, Klasnic figured in 84 games for us, whereas Anelka only played in 61.

But there's only one goal in it in terms of how many they each scored.

So Anelka is the better striker.

Anelka had more actual time on the pitch so Klasnic was more productive in terms of scoring goals.

Stupid comment by a stupid person.

For a start, Johnny's stats don't agree with what it says on Soccerbase (no offence Johnny) as they have him down as coming off the bench 50 times. It's also a wild exaggeration when people say Klasnic would only come on for five minutes here and there; he was often brought on early in the second half. Secondly Klasnic started god knows how many cup matches against weakened opposition. Anelka played nearly all of his football for us in the league. Also, if you look at the goals Anelka scored for us, there's no way Klasnic would have had the pace, control and technique to put them away. You can just imagine Klasnic chasing after a long ball out to the left wing, running with it, teasing an Arsenal full back, coming inside and blasting it into the top corner can't you! All Klasnic knew was hope for a lucky bounce and have a shot, hence his goals were so sporadic.

Bang on assessment Doff, as I said earlier Anelka's movement made space (and chances) Klasnic would never have been in a position to take.

My thread, my poll, my rules.

The correct answer is Anelka.

(Bangs gavel on desk.)

Next!

doffcocker wrote:Also, if you look at the goals Anelka scored for us, there's no way Klasnic would have had the pace, control and technique to put them away. You can just imagine Klasnic chasing after a long ball out to the left wing, running with it, teasing an Arsenal full back, coming inside and blasting it into the top corner can't you!

You're right, goals that include pace, control and technique count double that of those tapped in from 2 yards.

What a knob.