Cut the Crap Coyle

Davies has scored 2 and set up 1 (2 if you're counting the first against Forest - I'm not!). If we're being pedantic we could include the second against Wednesday where he played a basic pass to Mark Davies who still had a lot to do.

Considering our style of play makes him the central figure in virtually our every attack, it stands to reason that he should play a part in a considerable fraction of the minimal number of goals we have scored.

doffcocker wrote:Davies has scored 2 and set up 1 (2 if you're counting the first against Forest - I'm not!). If we're being pedantic we could include the second against Wednesday where he played a basic pass to Mark Davies who still had a lot to do.

Considering our style of play makes him the central figure in virtually our every attack, it stands to reason that he should play a part in a considerable fraction of the minimal number of goals we have scored.

He has 2 goals and 3 assists.

50% of our goals

You can't just pick and chose saying a certain assist doesn't count, your just being ridiculously bias. You can't just chose to 'not count' an assist because you basically don't like the player who did it.

so he has ' played a part in a considerable fraction of the minimal number of goals we have scored.'

Don't see what the problem is, we have plenty of actual underperforming players that can be moaned about instead. If Davies wasn't in the squad we would be lower down the table.





Our style of play isn't the fault of Davies, thats Coyles decision, and Davies is the best Striker we have at playing that style. Do you think if Davies wern't in the team at all we would play a flowing passing style? of course we wouldn't, we would play the same but we would have N'gog and Sordell and be even worse.

To my mind surely it should be Davies and Sordell up front since Coyle said himself that Sordell is the best finisher, yet he seems to be 4th choice.

Davies would win headers, tire the defense, and be strong in set pieces - all which has has done well this season - and Sordell should be the quick agile finisher.

"Our style of play isn't the fault of Davies, thats Coyles decision, and Davies is the best Striker we have at playing that style. Do you think if Davies wern't in the team at all we would play a flowing passing style? of course we wouldn't, we would play the same but we would have N'gog and Sordell and be even worse.

To my mind surely it should be Davies and Sordell up front since Coyle said himself that Sordell is the best finisher, yet he seems to be 4th choice.

Davies would win headers, tire the defense, and be strong in set pieces - all which has has done well this season - and Sordell should be the quick agile finisher."

Can't be ar5ed with this any more really but we play hoofball BECAUSE Davies is picked. If he's not picked we have to try to play proper football and if we get promoted that's what we will have to do. BKD is a Bolton legend but it's over,has been for at least 2 years. He's ruining his legacy. We have to move on. WE REALLY DO HAVE TO MOVE ON. Davies, winning headers,standing strong,tiring the defence,that made me laugh that did.

Lofty_Love wrote:
He has 2 goals and 3 assists.
50% of our goals.
You can't just pick and chose saying a certain assist doesn't count, your just being ridiculously bias. You can't just chose to 'not count' an assist because you basically don't like the player who did it.

I choose not to count it because it was a blatant foul. Anybody can jump, push a defender in the back and assist an eventual goalscorer in doing so. It was so ridiculous, I laughed out loud when I saw the replay. 99 times out of 100, it would not have stood! In any case, is a missed chance that just happened to result in another player scoring technically an assist?
You can't just credit players for being involved in a goal. The pass that led to Mark Davies' strike on Saturday could have been anybody's. It's a basic pass that just happened to lead to a goal thanks to the technique of another player. If, for instance, a defender plays a 10 yard pass to an attacker who takes it from one penalty area to another and scores, does the defender get credited with assisting a goal?
It's about as pedantic as blaming Davies for Forest's first goal since his giving away of possession round the halfway line resulted ultimately in McGugan's goal. So how one can interpret "assisting/being involved in a goal" is extremely broad.
Who's fault the style of play is is irrelevant - it is to blame for the limited number of chances we are creating over 90 minutes.

Lofty_Love wrote:
Our style of play isn't the fault of Davies, thats Coyles decision, and Davies is the best Striker we have at playing that style. Do you think if Davies wern't in the team at all we would play a flowing passing style? of course we wouldn't, we would play the same but we would have N'gog and Sordell and be even worse.
.

This ideology is baffling.

The fact that Davies is the most suited to what is essentially an ineffective system does not justify his place in the side.

You seem to be confusing what is an attack an Owen "Clueless" Coyle with an attack on Kevin Davies.

If (when) Boggers hoof's it and SKD manages to bundle the hoof into the net, is that an 'assist' for the keeper?

Hip Priest wrote:

Can't be ar5ed with this any more really but we play hoofball BECAUSE Davies is picked. If he's not picked we have to try to play proper football and if we get promoted that's what we will have to do.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong.

There was a time last season when Kevin Davies spent several games on the bench, I forget how many. The team didn't suddenly turn into a passing side, they still kicked the ball long to Ngog/Klasnic or whichever donkey was playing.

The fact is Coyle has put together a group of players who only know one way of playing - hoofing it. If we're going to hoof it, we might as well have a target man in the team.

Exactly, the style won't change and we would just have players on the pitch who are even worse at playing it, I don't understand how that is 'baffling' to you.

The point about the assists not being good enough to be called assist is 'baffling'. If someone scores a 2 yard tap in then does it not go on their goal count? To get assists and goals you have to be in the right place, at the right time, and make the right decision, its not just about the technical quality..

But then there were people last year who were discounting his goals at the end of the season because they were 'easy' as well.. So im not really surprised, but personally id prefer 5 simple contributions to goals than 1 or 2 spectacular ones.

Suppose we better discount the points those assists you mentioned got us as well then, down in 20th place.

doffcocker wrote:
'You can't just credit players for being involved in a goal'

Yes you can, if Mark Davies had 2 goals and 3 assists there is no way you would be saying they weren't good enough.

doffcocker wrote:
'is a missed chance that just happened to result in another player scoring technically an assist?'

Of course it is! If Davies didn't do that then there is no goal, no threat, no chance, the opposition would just reclaim the ball and counter.

I don't think he is being used in all the correct ways, and hes getting too much game time for his fitness level, but your argument was we are better without him and that 'he should play a part in a
considerable fraction of the minimal number of goals we have scored.' Which he does, so why the problem with him?

Hip Priest wrote:Davies, winning headers,standing strong,tiring the defence,that made me laugh that did.

2 goals from set pieces, 1 assists from a set piece, 3 out of 5 goal contributions a result of him winning headers and being strong in set pieces.

Which bit made you laugh?

I'll say one thing. I'll bet the two centre backs who were marking Davies at Sheff Wednesday were glad to see the back of him when the final whistle blew.

Doffcocker, just out of interest, if Kevin Davies finishes the season our top scorer with, say, 20 goals - will you still think it's a mistake to pick him?

Natasha Whittam wrote:I'm sorry, but this is wrong.

There was a time last season when Kevin Davies spent several games on the bench, I forget how many. The team didn't suddenly turn into a passing side, they still kicked the ball long to Ngog/Klasnic or whichever donkey was playing.

The fact is Coyle has put together a group of players who only know one way of playing - hoofing it. If we're going to hoof it, we might as well have a target man in the team.

This says it really.

As a target man Big Kev has been the best in the business but what he's never had is somebody with the qualities of, say, Kevin Philips or Andy Johnson to play alongside him and reap the benefits.

Lofty_Love wrote:
The point about the assists not being good enough to be called assist is 'baffling'. If someone scores a 2 yard tap in then does it not go on their goal count? To get assists and goals you have to be in the right place, at the right time, and make the right decision, its not just about the technical quality.

The concept extends beyond whether you classify something as an assist/goal or not. Coming back to an earlier example, supposing a defender plays a 10 yard pass to an attacker who takes it from one penalty area to another and scores, do you keep him in the side on the basis that he provided the pass for that goal? Do you keep a player in the side because a bad cross of his turned into a goal? Nobody would try to discount him the fact that it's a goal that should be added to his tally, but how you credit it from a critical point of view is another matter altogether. Granted a "tap-in" is often so because of the scorer's skilled positional sense, but they can also be a story of chance.
I'm not implying these situations are reminiscent of Kevin Davies necessarily - this is just an illustration of how stats relating to an individual's goals/assists can be a poor representation of his actual abilities.
My argument isn't that he 'ought to play a part in a considerable fraction of the minimal number of goals we have scored' but that the fact he does is no astonishing feat considering the other players are apparently obliged for our every attack to be delivered via him, and that a change in approach would make for a stronger attacking force that creates more chances over the course of ninety minutes.

The difference with your comparison (and one someone used a hoof ball from Bogdan as an example) is that it doesn't happen often, that defender will only have the one assist and no one will be clamming having him in the team would lead to goal scoring chances.

Davies hasn't got 3 lucky assists and 2 lucky goals, from all of them you could say the Mark Davies assists is the least important, but even for that he had to run for the ball, put the effort in and make the right decision to pass to Davies, and he ran up with him and made himself available as an option. If he had hesitated when he first got the ball, or didn't put the effort in to get there in the first place there would have been no goal, of course Mark Davies was more important to it but Kev was the second most. But thats the only contribution that can be classed as lucky, the rest have been a very direct influence on the game.

Kevs stats so far this season don't really misrepresent him at all, if anything they go further to show what his abilities are. A striker who scores a few goals, mostly from set pieces but also help bring others into the game.

You keep a player in the team if he has played a part in half of your goals.

Also why is it that we HAVE to play long balls when Davies is on the pitch, we don't. We have 9 other outfield players, the fact that Davies is on the pitch is not the reason why we play like we do, I agree a different style would improve our team, but I also think Davies, going off current form, could fit with this. Crosses are still played in flowing football, strength is still needed, set pieces are still taken.

Lofty_Love wrote:Crosses are still played in flowing football, strength is still needed, set pieces are still taken.

No one can argue Davies is one of the best headers of a ball at this level - yet how many times does a winger cross the ball into the penalty area for Davies to attack - hardly ever. We seem quite happy to punt the ball from defence, but get a winger on the wing and they hardly ever put the ball on the penalty spot for Davies to attack.

Yeah I agree with you on that, ive found that very frustrating over the last year, especially with Petrov being in the team. Our lack of crossing is a problem. - buts thats what I meant, a change of style could still have Davies playing.

There's only one statistic that makes any sense ..... 35 years old ..... and a yard slower by the week.

I think he will retire at the end of this season. And were will that leave us? A strike team of whoever combination who has barely played together and a hoof mentality still in place.

I would say going into the Prem in a sad state ...but I don't think that's going to happen with 2 or 3 more goals from SKD and 4 from the Gog man.

It's catch 22 .....bite the bullit now....get the younger lads on while we have weaker teams to play.

Coyle came out with the same bollocks last season about why Sordell didn't play, he was apparently happy with ngog and davies up front were playing, though we got relegated which doesn't make one bit of sense.

The problem with the partnership is they are both similar in how they play, both hold the ball up well but not an ounce of pace between them. IMO you need to mix it up if you have 2 strikers, a guy who will run off the last defenders shoulder and a kind of target man who will allow the other striker to benefit. Sadly the 2 strikers with pace keep being benched.

terenceanne wrote:

I think he will retire at the end of this season.

First choice striker and earning £20k per week - would you retire?

I wouldn't retire ....but I would expect my boss to sit me on the bench at the minimum.

SKD may well end up as our leading scorer. But that isn't saying much ..... a training dummy parked on the penalty spot would score 4 goals a season just in deflections.