• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Sturrock on West Ham

THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK

Life President⭐
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
12,017
Location
SHOEBURY
The 1.1 goals per game we were scoring with him in the side would have seen us relegated just as badly as the 1.05 goals per game we scored after he left did. We'd have just been one single goal better off.

Those stats don't tell the whole story Beefy. When he went the whole side seemed to lose heart and confidence drained. We started letting in more goals. After he went we tended to score that 1.05 after we were 2 or 3 goals down with the game lost.
 

Beefy

Life President
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
18,901
Location
Old Leigh
I think not getting paid was a bigger reason why we dropped down. But even with one of the best strikers at this level we weren't scoring anything like enough goals to keep us out of trouble.

If anything it shows that heart, confidence and not conceding goals are much more important than this mystical '20 a season' man that everyone seems to fixate on.
 

THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK

Life President⭐
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
12,017
Location
SHOEBURY
I think not getting paid was a bigger reason why we dropped down. But even with one of the best strikers at this level we weren't scoring anything like enough goals to keep us out of trouble.

If anything it shows that heart, confidence and not conceding goals are much more important than this mystical '20 a season' man that everyone seems to fixate on.


This is my point, you are right we weren't. When he left, I think the next best scorer was on 2 or 3 goals. He did his goalscoring bit, the rest of the team sadly did not.
We can argue this until the cows come home, but I've been watching football for 40 years, and I know the importance of a goalscorer. Getting relegated with one is extremely rare, and getting automatic promotion without one is rare.
 

Yorkshire Blue

Super Moderator⭐
Staff member
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
36,172
Location
London
Most of the season meaning until the transfer window opened in January?:unsure:
He would have played in less than half of the League 1 games we had last season I would have thought.

You'd be wrong then. He played 28 games for us last season.

FWIW, 7 players appeared in 40 or more games, with Laurent just behind on 37 appearances.
 

Norwichshrimper

Can you hear Talvin Singh
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
2,418
Let's be honest we were never going to get promoted with Mark Rawle and Barrington Belgrave upfront were we, despite a reasonably creative midfield.
 

Yorkshire Blue

Super Moderator⭐
Staff member
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
36,172
Location
London
Let's be honest we were never going to get promoted with Mark Rawle and Barrington Belgrave upfront were we, despite a reasonably creative midfield.

And we were going to get promoted with our width being supplied by Mark Beard and Damon Searle as wing-backs?
 

Tangled up in Blue

Certified Senior Citizen⭐
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
31,390
Location
Sant Cugat del Vallès
You'd be wrong then. He played 28 games for us last season.

FWIW, 7 players appeared in 40 or more games, with Laurent just behind on 37 appearances.

League 1 games? :unsure:
However the point is surely that we would almost certainly not have gone down if he'd still been there to bang in the goals until the end of the season.
 

Yorkshire Blue

Super Moderator⭐
Staff member
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
36,172
Location
London
League 1 games? :unsure:
However the point is surely that we would almost certainly not have gone down if he'd still been there to bang in the goals until the end of the season.

I think it included a couple of cup games, but he definitely played over half the league games.

As Beefy has already pointed out that with him in the side we scored 1.1 goals a game and without him we scored 1.05 goals a game, selling him probably wasn't the problem.....
 

THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK

Life President⭐
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
12,017
Location
SHOEBURY
I think it included a couple of cup games, but he definitely played over half the league games.

As Beefy has already pointed out that with him in the side we scored 1.1 goals a game and without him we scored 1.05 goals a game, selling him probably wasn't the problem.....




If you really think that, let me ask you this then, do you think we would have avoided relegation if he played the rest of the season?
 

Beefy

Life President
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
18,901
Location
Old Leigh
That 0.05 goals per game over the 20 game we had left would have earned us exactly one more goal had Barnard stayed. Obviously that's not an exact science but the point is that without Barnard in the team the rest of the players started to score and we ended up scoring at roughly the same rate as we had earlier in the season. The difference was that over the last four months of the season we were conceding two or three goals per game. Barnard would not have stopped that.
 

THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK

Life President⭐
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
12,017
Location
SHOEBURY
That 0.05 goals per game over the 20 game we had left would have earned us exactly one more goal had Barnard stayed. Obviously that's not an exact science but the point is that without Barnard in the team the rest of the players started to score and we ended up scoring at roughly the same rate as we had earlier in the season. The difference was that over the last four months of the season we were conceding two or three goals per game. Barnard would not have stopped that.



If you're going to use that argument, then I could say that we would definitely have stayed up with Barney, because the rest of the team started scoring as well.
 

Beefy

Life President
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
18,901
Location
Old Leigh
We still wouldn't because even if you added Barnard's goals per game to the total that we scoring after he left it's still less than the amount of goals per game we conceded in the last four months of the season.
 

THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK

Life President⭐
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
12,017
Location
SHOEBURY
We still wouldn't because even if you added Barnard's goals per game to the total that we scoring after he left it's still less than the amount of goals per game we conceded in the last four months of the season.

It doesn't quite work like that, it's not an exact science. After he went, we were no threat up front, the opposition could afford to attack us more, and everyone seemed to make a hatfull of chances against us. Where as, we hardly had a shot in some games towards the end of the season.
 

Beefy

Life President
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
18,901
Location
Old Leigh
I'm sorry I just don't see it. We kept losing towards the end of the season because our players weren't getting paid, injuries and suspensions kept catching up with us and we were unable to bring in replacement players because we were under a transfer embargo. To put all of that down to Lee Barnard leaving just doesn't stack up to me.
 

THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK

Life President⭐
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
12,017
Location
SHOEBURY
I'm sorry I just don't see it. We kept losing towards the end of the season because our players weren't getting paid, injuries and suspensions kept catching up with us and we were unable to bring in replacement players because we were under a transfer embargo. To put all of that down to Lee Barnard leaving just doesn't stack up to me.


You are dead right about the other factors, but I personally feel that we would have had enough to survive with Barney, and teams would have played us differently.
I don't know why you don't see the importance of a goal scorer. Hope not of course, but if Southend are struggling to score in the first Ten games or so, surely even you will be saying 'We need a goal scorer'.
 

Beefy

Life President
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
18,901
Location
Old Leigh
You are dead right about the other factors, but I personally feel that we would have had enough to survive with Barney, and teams would have played us differently.
I don't know why you don't see the importance of a goal scorer. Hope not of course, but if Southend are struggling to score in the first Ten games or so, surely even you will be saying 'We need a goal scorer'.

I see the importance of having good players in every position. I don't subscribe to the theory that just because you have a goalscorer then you're guaranteed to do well, and think that any decent forward will naturally score more goals in a good team, creating lots of chances and having 60% possession of the ball.

Having a good striker is obviously preferable to having a mediocre striker. But having a good goalkeeper is at least important, as it having a good centre-half and a good central midfielder. I'm not sure why you think these aren't as important.
 

THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK

Life President⭐
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
12,017
Location
SHOEBURY
I see the importance of having good players in every position. I don't subscribe to the theory that just because you have a goalscorer then you're guaranteed to do well, and think that any decent forward will naturally score more goals in a good team, creating lots of chances and having 60% possession of the ball.

Having a good striker is obviously preferable to having a mediocre striker. But having a good goalkeeper is at least important, as it having a good centre-half and a good central midfielder. I'm not sure why you think these aren't as important.



Where did I say these aren't as important? The subject we are debating is goal scorers, and you can throw all fancy figures at me, but you will never change my mind on the importance of a good goal scorer.
 

Beefy

Life President
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
18,901
Location
Old Leigh
Where did I say these aren't as important? The subject we are debating is goal scorers, and you can throw all fancy figures at me, but you will never change my mind on the importance of a good goal scorer.

Right so we're agreed then that having good players all over the pitch is a good thing? I'm glad we got to the bottom of that!
 
Top