Anelka Vs Klasnic - You decide.

Oi, I've told you - the discussion's over and Anelka has pissed it 16-2.

Although perhaps when considering the hard evidence of the matter (ie the fact that Anelka received precisely eight times more votes than Sick Boy), we should have factored in "actual amount of time spent voting" and other such irrelevant bollocks.....

Yes, I vote made up of the wankers on here is concrete proof.

Johnny posted the real concrete proof. Goal stats.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

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.

Obviously I didn't say that you turd.

I'm simply pointing out how stats can be misleading. There's no way Klasnic would have as many goals as Anelka if he'd had to work for them as much as Anelka did.

doffcocker wrote:

Obviously I didn't say that you turd.

I'm simply pointing out how stats can be misleading. There's no way Klasnic would have as many goals as Anelka if he'd had to work for them as much as Anelka did.

Anelka was playing in a very good Bolton team, Klasnic a shit one.

The stats don't lie. Klasnic has a higher goals to game time ratio despite playing in a poorer team with less supply.

Can't help feeling that this thread is rather like 2 bald men arguing over a comb.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:

Obviously I didn't say that you turd.

I'm simply pointing out how stats can be misleading. There's no way Klasnic would have as many goals as Anelka if he'd had to work for them as much as Anelka did.

Anelka was playing in a very good Bolton team, Klasnic a shit one.

The stats don't lie. Klasnic has a higher goals to game time ratio despite playing in a poorer team with less supply.

Absolute bollocks again.

Anelka was part of the side that took 5 points from the first 10 games of a season (despite his goals).

Klasnic was part of a side that spent most of the season in the top 6.

doffcocker wrote:

Absolute bollocks again.

Anelka was part of the side that took 5 points from the first 10 games of a season (despite his goals).

Klasnic was part of a side that spent most of the season in the top 6.

You lying bellend. Klasnic was part of the Coyle relegation side.

I demand an apology.

The year we got relegated he had a good run in the team up front with Davies, it was one of the most immobile, boring, crap strike 'forces' we've ever had.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:

Absolute bollocks again.

Anelka was part of the side that took 5 points from the first 10 games of a season (despite his goals).

Klasnic was part of a side that spent most of the season in the top 6.

You lying bellend. Klasnic was part of the Coyle relegation side.

I demand an apology.

Speaks volumes at just how poor a player Klasnic was. A team consisting of players of anelkas quality would have easily survived.

I agree doff, nothing is concrete on the owd net, and i tried three different sites and this was the only one i could make sense of.

I also agree with Lusty, time on the pitch would be a better indicator as to who was the most effective striker between the two.  If you are factoring in other things, what about cost per goal also?  my money would be on Klasnic being better "value"

Breadman has never seen either play in real life, facts don't lie, like it or not Klasnic has a better strike rate than Anelka.
Get over it.

Anelka was a world class player .......that's the end of it.

Klasnic could have been a very very good striker given the correct chance say in a Munich team or an Arsenal in his prime years.

Neither are fit to piss in the same pot as JB!!

Klasnic frustrated the hell out of me, the laziest player i have had the misfortune to watch, to compare him with Anelka is ludicrous. Its as daft as comparing Klasnic with Madine

Maybe Klasnic was just conserving his energy like JB? He certainly wasn't the character Byrom was!! Oh for a dozen of his titty liners this season!!!

Anelka's the best striker ever to play for Bolton Wanderers - that's undeniable. I still can't believe we had a genuinely world class player in his prime.

bwfc1874 wrote:Anelka's the best striker ever to play for Bolton Wanderers - that's undeniable. 

Ha Ha Ha

An England international, Lofthouse played his entire club career for his home town club, Bolton Wanderers, scoring 255 goals in 452 league appearances.

McGinlay was better than Anelka as well, so was Andy Walker.

If they'd been born 20 years later they'd be playing for Chelsea or Man Utd.

wessy wrote: to compare him with Anelka is ludicrous. Its as daft as comparing Klasnic with Madine

The stats don't lie. Klasnic scored more goals per minutes played, and in a poorer team.

Natasha Whittam wrote:McGinlay was better than Anelka as well, so was Andy Walker.

If they'd been born 20 years later they'd be playing for Chelsea or Man Utd.

Why didn't they at the time then?