Well hopefully for you your scouts were there. You don't want to end up paying a ridiculous fee for a very average player from another club in a couple of years time, that you could have bought from us for half the price.
Hopefully enough of your coaches were there. You don't want to let another very good player go for half the price you could have got.
His starts:goals ratio was very good at Spurs, better than any of the strikers he had to compete with actually.
His starts to goals ratio doesn't tell you much as it includes goals when coming off the bench. Minutes per goal is the best way to judge things and when they were all at Spurs together (which was only for a short time) both Defoe and Keane had better records than him.
So often players (i'm not just talking about Bent, but in general) get judged on cumulative data and this really distorts things. You can only score when on the pitch so it's unfair to make comparisons by just looking at the amount of goals a player has scored, which is so often done. We are apparently trying to sign Suarez at the moment and our fans are excited by this as yours were over Bent. But I can tell by reading most of the comments on Spurs boards that hardly anyone has watched him, other than casually during the WC. I keep reading how fast, strong and clinical he is! I've seen a fair bit of Suarez and he's not fast, goes over easily and often has about 5 chances before he scores. Yet his stats say he's got an incredible record and he looks a bit like Tevez, so our fans seem to have decided he has Teves attributes and the clinical finishing of RVN (as they scored similar amounts in Holland). I genuinely think you're in for shock concerning Bent and we might well be if we sign Suarez.
His starts to goals ratio doesn't tell you much, yet mins per goal does? Yet players who get judged on culmative data distort things?
joey55 you are an idiot. The same culmative data refers to both sides of the argument from differing angles, does it not?
What I'm saying is that is a player scores 10 goals in a season and starts 20 games, it suggest his goals to starts ratio is 1 in 2. But 5 of those goals could have been scored from the subs bench, so shouldn't be relevant in a goals to starts ratio. In reality he'd have a goals to starts ratio of 1 in 4. Hence a goals per minute ratio is better as it is a more accurate assesment of a players striker rate. Goals to starts give a distinct advantage to those players who spend more time on the pitch.
I simply disagree. Because what you say is bollocks.
If a player comes off the bench twice and scores 2 goals he has earnt the right to be in the starting 11, the fact that the player does not score in the games he starts should not make a difference to any starts per/ mins per total. Many differentials could be factored into this argument, (manager utilisation as an impact sub etc.) hence the reason it fails.
All that matters is "how many (total) goals per season?" Who scores the most? Simple.