The Significant Striker Theory

Subject: The Significant Striker Theory Thu Jul 12 2007, 21:14

From 365's Columnist John Nicholson.

Introducing `The Significant Striker Theory`
Posted 09/07/07 11:56EmailPrintSave

When a club buys a new striker, everyone trots out how many goals he has scored in however many games he's played. More goals means he's a better striker, right? That seems to be the rationale. Liverpool fans are hugging Torres' 14 goals in 42 internationals to their chests to prove he is a top striker while his critics will point to how his domestic record of a goal every two-and-a-half games in the league just won't win you the Premiership.

However, both positions are potentially wrong. I've developed a new theory, using my brain and everything - it's called The Significant Striker Theory.

Strikers can be very deceptive. There are those who boost their stats by knocking in a hat-trick against a hapless relegation side but can't score against a top team. There are others who specialise in scoring a couple in the last five minutes in a 5-0 win when the opposition is stretched, knackered and has given up. And there are others who do almost nothing all season, then finish with a flurry in end-of-season games when there's nothing left to play for. All of them can end up with great statistics that flatter their real contribution.

Their stats look great but hide the fact that the majority of goals they score are not significant goals and thus they are not significant strikers. Let me give you a good example.

Last season Mark Viduka, widely hailed as a great striker and thus so desired by Big Sam that they were prepared to pay him 75k a week, scored 14 goals in 22 starts. That looks top notch; more than a goal every two games. But look a little deeper and you'll find the boulder-headed Aussie took until the New Year to score three goals, by which time Boro's season was set in mediocrity. By the end of March he'd got his total up to six in 17 games. Then in the last five weeks of the season when there was nothing left to play for and all but one game to be played against relegation strugglers, he knocked in eight goals. Had he failed to score any of these goals the Boro would almost certainly still not have been relegated. His goals were largely insignificant and barely helped the club at all because they came too late.

Under my Significant Striker Theory, Viduka's contribution looks good statistically but in reality was very poor. If he repeats them at Newcastle this season they, like the Boro, will struggle.

It's when, where and why a striker scores that counts. The pure number at the end of May far from tells the whole story.

What you need at your club is a Significant Striker. That is, a striker who will score the big goals that will win you tight games. The one who converts 0-0 to a 1-0 win, or who rescues you a point. This is usually a striker who doesn't need five attempts to score.

This new standard ignores the bald total of goals a player has scored and looks more closely at the importance of the goals. By this standard, Drogba - in scoring in so many 1-0 wins and in pulling back losses in the last minute to draws - is a truly great striker. His contribution is hugely significant. That fact that he was also top scorer last season is a testament to a player at the height of his powers.

Goalscoring, perhaps above all other statistics in football, can be the most deceptive and yet goalscorers command the highest prices. If you sign a player who scores lots of goals against poor sides but few against big clubs, is that player really going to be that valuable to a club that has big ambitions?

Compare Viduka to Dimitar Berbatov at Spurs who scored 12 in 33 - which on paper seems less impressive than Viduka. But his goals were much more significant. Spurs only lost once when he scored. He was almost in double figures by the time Christmas came, helping Spurs get off to a good start in the league and in the UEFA Cup. Even more crucially he scored four in the last six games to secure Spurs fifth place. In the four games in which he scored, Spurs won three and drew one. In an impressive 12 games his goals gave Spurs the lead. In four he got them level. Only in one game, the 4-0 win at Fulham, did he score 'flabby' goals, putting away the third and fourth late in the second half.

His goals per game and overall total are worse than Viduka's but his 'Significant Striker' status is in a different league altogether. Here was a player playing for his team and not for a new contract at a new club the end of the season.

Somewhere between the highs of Berbatov and the lows of Viduka comes Darren Bent. He scored 14 Premiership goals last season, not bad in a struggling side and the highest-scoring Englishman in the league. When he scored, his goals helped Charlton to 50% of the wins they achieved - though that was only four out of eight. Add to that the fact that five of the goals he scored were against four out of the top seven sides - Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and Bolton - and you'd have to say that although Charlton were relegated, his contribution was pretty good.

But he hasn't achieved Significant Striker status yet. The very fact that the club he turned out for 32 times last season was relegated and that if he had scored just two more truly significant goals - perhaps one against Watford to turn a 0-0 into a win and one against Sheffield United to turn a 1-1 into a win - they would have stayed up. That's the true measure of a striker's effectiveness.

Bent may be a useful striker but he's not yet a Significant Striker, which is why some see him as over-priced and thus over-rated. The numbers look good but the reality is far less convincing.

There's a difference between a good goalscorer and a significant striker. History is littered with strikers who have scored tonnes of goals for sides that have still achieved nothing. Sometimes this is because the rest of the side isn't as good as the star striker but sometimes it's because the star strikers has notched up lots of 'flabby' goals when the result didn't matter as the game was already won or was against bereft opposition.

It's surprising how many managers can't see beyond the bald statistics. Paying a lot of money for a lot of goals won't necessarily make you successful but paying a lot of money for a lot of significant goals almost certainly will.

You can read more of John's stuff for F365 by buying his book Footy Rocks from Amazon.co.uk and you can make him even richer by buying his t-shirts from www.djtees.com

Andy Booth Age : 23 Joined : 11 Jun 2007 Posts : 559

A great topic.

However, Man Utd wouldn't offer 30M for Berbatov only his important goals. But also his great vision, grace and passing.
So do Mark Viduka , honestly i regard him as the first choice of being a back up of Berbatov when his contract going to expired this summer, becoz they play similar style football.

Although he's not a Yiddo now but i think he has been underestimated, beside scoring goals , he did much than tht but nobody would play attention. Would Big Sam offer 75k to a 30+ and inconsistency player? He's got reason

Totally agree the part of Darren Bent. But apart of tht it would shocking me if one day he could play wht Berbatov played last season , even than scoring 20+ or become significant.
_________________

No time for gooners
Cause we are the champions from the Lane

Gets Foward Whenever Possible
Gets Into Opposition Area
Arrives Late In Opposition Area

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTdO4CdSors

Subject: Re: The Significant Striker Theory Fri Jul 13 2007, 08:41

Dodgy Sam has to pay cocky wide boy Viduka, 75 grand a week coz he's is probably already on at least 50 at 'Boro Wink

Viduka would be 2nd choice to Berba (as probably Darren Bent given the choice, which we may or may not have given injuries and the number of games we'll hopefully be playing) ... so who would you rather have to come on for 30 games this season, Viduka or Bent? Laughing

Yes, we invested a lot more in Bent, but it's not our fault NooCastle has wasted vast amounts of their money in the past and have built nothing and have little to show for it all ! Wankers ! !! clown

Makes me even more proud of our Men at The Top.

king

Founding Father Joined : 06 Jun 2007 Posts : 1704

Sorry Linesmann, I think Mark Veruka is overated, over paid and under achieves. Certainly since he left Leeds anyway. Added to that, he'll bugger off at any opportunity to play for Australia, thus reducing the number of games he's available to play for his club and he's approaching an age where his sell on value will be minimal.

I'm glad we didn't get him and even happier those nor'ven monkey

have paid top wack for him Laughing

Edgar Davids Joined : 06 Jun 2007 Posts : 3552

I agree - also 75k per week is a staggering amount of money for a lazy t**t.

Why should we fork out an extra 1.7m per season on wages to Viduka compared to what Bent is receiving ?

Not worth it.

Gary Stevens Age : 37 Joined : 06 Jun 2007 Posts : 1266

For what its worth - Mark Veruka (chuff chuff) was in Als a couple of months ago while he was on international duty for the cockeroos (chuff chuff) - VB in one hand, Marlboro light in t'other. 75k a week indeed!

Edgar Davids Joined : 06 Jun 2007 Posts : 2576

And he's been shit in the Asian Cup thus far. The Aussies turned up expecting to walk in to the final and have had more than a bit of a wake up call. One more dodgy result and they're out.