Ollie Watkins

[Zatman]

21 hours ago, VillanousOne said:

Really don't get how he's gone from the player who last season seemed beyond criticism, to the next favourite scape goat.

I don't think he works well with Ings, but I don't think that is his or even Ing's fault.

I don't buy into this weird 'he's got an attutude' problem. Without him in the side we look clueless going forward.

Favourite scapegoat, what rubbish 

We still have Mings

[TRO]

52 minutes ago, nick76 said:

See how quoting stats without context makes your argument sound so good but when you add the context that 80% of Ollie’s goals was outside of the top league it makes your comment look as if you were trying to deceive the audience reading it.

There are many factors to consider when appraising goals to games ratios....across varying leagues

• standard of opposing defenders and play
• standard of service from team mates.

Better the standard you play in, the the better defenders you face, but that can be negated by the better players around you ,for service......the factors can wash themselves out.

Its an interesting subject to study, because many players have similar goal to game ratio's across varying standards of football, which can lead to suspect its the player, themselves that matter most

Nick, just consider this...a couple of wildly chosen examples, in their respective league games only.

Robert Lewandowski...

• Znicz Pruskow in the Polish League...his ratio was 1.63:1
• Bayern Munich.....................................his ratio was 1.05: 1
• Now accepting The bundesliga is the much higher standard of defender, but his service is equally much better...he has the better ratio in the tougher league.

Patrick Bamford

• Middlesbrough in the championship....His ratio was 3.9:1
• Leeds in the championship...................His ratio was 2.76:1
• Leeds in the Premier league..................his ratio was 2.36: 1

both players scoring more freely in the higher standard of football.

Now I am not suggesting contrasting examples can't be found.....but my point is, I think its more about the player himself, than the varying conditions they play in.

I think the goal ratio follows the player in the main, not the league he plays in.

......I think the goals to games ratio, is a decent enough barometer to tell whether a player has good goal scoring prolificacy without going in to too much pedantic analysis.

Usually the ones with the best goals to games ratio's are the best strikers.

                       

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by TRO

[allani]

3 minutes ago, TRO said:

I agree.....I also see that Coutinho, was prepared to go in amongst them with quick feet, big reputation and that spooked them.

I also think Carney made an impression on them too....he was another elusive figure, for them to contend with and all factors considered, it put them on their arse....with JJ growing in confidence with the additions.

I think its all about players playing off each other.....i.e Deehan, Gray, Little........Morely, Shaw, Withe.

Ings and Watkins have no telepathy or willingness to link up with each other, they are too far away from each other.

They play like they have just had a row.

To be honest I think the Man Utd game summed up our strengths and weaknesses quite well. 

First 30 minutes showed how difficult it is for us when a team gets on top.  No-one was really able to get a foot on the ball, slow down the match and pin the opposition down in their own half for a bit.  We started passing longer and Ings / Watkins were outnumbered, easy to mark, isolated and not strong enough to hold up the ball until support arrived. 

We then entered a spell where our midfield took control - Sanson, Emi and JJ started getting hold of the ball and linking up reasonably well.  Defensively we got in Utd's faces quicker and I think Dougie and Sanson in particularly started nicking balls off the DiveMaster so his influence disappeared apart from falling on the floor, rolling around in agony and then moaning to the ref (up until the point when he fired an unstoppable second past Emi).  However, our front two didn't seem to be finding / making enough space to create really good opportunities.  We were probably unlucky not to score in that spell and de Gea made three or four really good stops (Emi's header, Digne's volley and a shot from JJ - although you'd have expected most keepers to save that one).  We were on top but (typically) we weren't making the half chances count. 

But once we got one back suddenly our midfield was untouchable - Utd couldn't get near the ball because we were moving it too quickly.  Honestly in that last 15 minutes if we had scored three Utd could have had no complaints.  Assuming that the last 15 is how Gerrard wants us to play (as much as possible) then I think this highlights your point above - we need a team with players playing off each other. 

If that is our system going forward (and with Coutinho, Digne, Buendia, JJ, Chuk, etc that would seem to be the case) we need centre forward(s) who thrive off that.  I've been slightly disappointed with Ings so far - I thought he'd create more space for himself in the box.  I have doubts that this is the system that plays to Ollie's strengths (he's probably better in a more counter-attack minded system) as his touch / passing / vision are not the best.    

That 15 minutes was a sign of what I think Gerrard wants us to be going forward.  It suits most of our midfield (although I think we need one more piece in the jigsaw there so that Dougie, JJ, McGinn, Sanson and Chuk are usually slightly higher up the pitch and a bit closer to Emi / Coutinho to make that incisive interplay more effective).  It suits our defenders - e.g. Digne is a perfect fit, Konsa can just lay the ball off to the midfield, Mings won't be tempted to hoof the ball down the channel at the first opportunity - and actually probably has some licence to go on a marauding run through the midfield like he did a couple of times against Utd (I think he was actually the most advanced player in the lead up to our first goal). 

So assuming the DCM comes in the only potential square pegs (certainly in terms of the starting line up) seem to be at right back (I really like Cashy - he gives absolutely everything every game he just needs to learn how to play a ball like Digne can) and up front.  So the days of a busy 9 running the channels are, I think, already behind us.  Gerrard wants us to play in a different way to Smith.  I think, based on the last 20 odd minutes against Utd, that his style probably suits the majority of our team better than the more counter-attack based approach of Smith did.  The best examples of this for me are probably Buendia - who becomes twice the player when we are bossing possession - and JJ who, up until 4 weeks ago I thought should probably be sent out on loan somewhere whereas now I think he is pretty close to forcing McGinn out of the starting line up.

Which brings me back to the point that Ings and Ollie have 18 matches (plus however many hours on the training pitch) to show Gerrard that they can play in that system.  If they can't then we need to sell in the summer and bring in someone who can.  Because no matter how good we do or don't think Ollie or Ings are - this team MUST be built around Coutinho and Buendia moving forwards.  If we get them firing then we will be a very difficult team to play against.

[nick76]

7 minutes ago, TRO said:

There are many factors to consider when appraising goals to games ratios....across varying leagues

• standard of opposing defenders and play
• standard of service from team mates.

Better the standard you play in, the the better defenders you face, but that can be negated by the better players around you ,for service......the factors can wash themselves out.

Its an interesting subject to study, because many players have similar goal to game ratio's across varying standards of football, which can lead to suspect its the player, themselves that matter most

Nick, just consider this...a couple of wildly chosen examples, in their respective league games only.

Robert Lewandowski...

• Znicz Pruskow in the Polish League...his ratio was 1.63:1
• Bayern Munich.....................................his ratio was 1.05: 1
• Now accepting The bundesliga is the much higher standard of defender, but his service is equally much better.

Patrick Bamford

• Middlesbrough in the championship....His ratio was 3.9:1
• Leeds in the championship...................His ratio was 2.76:1
• Leeds in the Premier league..................his ratio was 2.36: 1

both players scoring more freely in the higher standard of football.

Now I am not suggesting contrasting examples can't be found.....but my point is, I think its more about the player himself, than the varying conditions they play in.

I think the goal ratio follows the player in the main, not the league he plays in.

                       

 

Mate, I think that’s not the best argument.  I used to score on average a goal a game in a crappy league does that mean I can score a goal a game in the PL? Of course not.  Many strikers move up leagues and aren’t so good, in fact on this forum we talk the opposite way that if Davis moves down leagues he can score more goals.  

The goal ratio doesn’t follow the player, the player still needs to have the ability at the level you are talking about.  You’ve picked a few players it works for and I’m sure there are a few more but on the whole it becomes harder otherwise teams would just buy the top striker in the lower leagues and that player would almost guarantee that ratio in the PL but we know that’s not true.

So I don’t think the goal ratio follows the player in the main, I think if the player has the ability and the service he may be able to achieve it but it’s more often the case the higher the league the player moves to, the goal ratio decreases.

 

[ejvilla]

Ollie's stats were reasonable yesterday, especially next to Ings who had zero expected assists, zero expected goals, zero shot creating actions, 2 progressive passes, 1 progressive carry, zero dribbles. (fbref.com)

Ings was subbed off on 76, we scored on 77 and 81. Correlation does not equal causation, but a pretty strong case to drop Ings because he adds nothing, play Ollie in his natural position, with 2 proper 10s or AMs behind.

[allani]

14 minutes ago, TRO said:

I think the goal ratio follows the player in the main, not the league he plays in.

......I think the goals to games ratio, is a decent enough barometer to tell whether a player has good goal scoring prolificacy without going in to too much pedantic analysis.

Usually the ones with the best goals to games ratio's are the best strikers.

Lots of good points being made in this general discussion by many posters.  So bravo chaps / chapesses!

I guess one caveat on the final paragraph above is that there are some physical elements at play too.  It is possible to score lots of goals in lower standard divisions even if you have a particular weakness to your game (pace, heading ability, etc) or because you have one particular stand out strength.  At that level you are probably also playing against limited defenders.  However, at higher levels it becomes more and more important to have a more rounded game.  If you have a lack of pace then good defenders will soon figure out how to stop you, if you are mainly a threat in the air then the opposition will find out better ways to either challenge you physically, or, more likely, try and elimate the threat at source by closing down the wide players before they can get a cross in / holding a higher defensive line.  There are plenty of players who have scored bucket loads of goals in lower leagues who have been complete flops in higher leagues.

What, I think becomes more important, in the higher leagues is that all round ability - good on the deck, decent pace, good in the air.  It is why maybe a player like Lineker might struggle more in today's game than someone like Shearer (although I still think Lineker was so quick in and around the box that he'd manage to find space to score a decent number of goals).

So goal ratios are all fine but they are still only part of the overall picture.  Anyway bring on more stats analysis please!!!  I am loving it!

[nick76]

2 minutes ago, allani said:

Anyway bring on more stats analysis please!!!

I’m always 100% right

[avfc1982am]

10 minutes ago, ejvilla said:

Ollie's stats were reasonable yesterday, especially next to Ings who had zero expected assists, zero expected goals, zero shot creating actions, 2 progressive passes, 1 progressive carry, zero dribbles. (fbref.com)

Ings was subbed off on 76, we scored on 77 and 81. Correlation does not equal causation, but a pretty strong case to drop Ings because he adds nothing, play Ollie in his natural position, with 2 proper 10s or AMs behind.

I think simply, Ollie's nose has been put out of joint having to make way when Ing's comes into the first 11. He's gone from 15 or so goals last year and the go to CF too 5ish at beyond the halfway point this year. He probably sees his WC opportunity evaporating and for o other reason than to facilitate a striker that is too similar.

For me Ollie works tirelessly, even without the ball. On that basis alone we should be putting our faith back in him and see how things pan out. 

[allani]

13 minutes ago, ejvilla said:

Ollie's stats were reasonable yesterday, especially next to Ings who had zero expected assists, zero expected goals, zero shot creating actions, 2 progressive passes, 1 progressive carry, zero dribbles. (fbref.com)

Ings was subbed off on 76, we scored on 77 and 81. Correlation does not equal causation, but a pretty strong case to drop Ings because he adds nothing, play Ollie in his natural position, with 2 proper 10s or AMs behind.

To be fair the contribution of both Ings and Ollie was pretty poor considering that we had something like 55% possession and were camped in the Man Utd half for most of the second half.  But we didn't score in the 77th and 81st minutes because Ollie was still on the pitch.  To be honest we could have taken them both off and you'd barely have noticed.

[allani]

2 minutes ago, nick76 said:

I’m always 100% right

But only 74.87% of the time.

[allani]

1 minute ago, avfc1982am said:

I think simply, Ollie's nose has been put out of joint having to make way when Ing's comes into the first 11. He's gone from 15 or so goals last year and the go to CF too 5ish at beyond the halfway point this year. He probably sees his WC opportunity evaporating and for o other reason than to facilitate a striker that is too similar.

For me Ollie works tirelessly, even without the ball. On that basis alone we should be putting our faith back in him and see how things pan out. 

For me we need to decide which one is more likely to score the most goals and let them start.  Our game approach under Gerrard has changed from the way Smith wanted to play.  It is less important for us to have a hard working pressing forward when we are expecting to dominate possession and territory.  If the belief is that Ollie will link up better with Coutinho and Buendia then he starts - otherwise Ings does.  I don't really care how much work they do chasing the ball / pressing the opposition centre backs - I want them to be getting on the end of passes from Buendia and Coutinho and sticking the ball in the back of the net.

[avfc1982am]

Just now, allani said:

To be fair the contribution of both Ings and Ollie was pretty poor considering that we had something like 55% possession and were camped in the Man Utd half for most of the second half.  But we didn't score in the 77th and 81st minutes because Ollie was still on the pitch.  To be honest we could have taken them both off and you'd barely have noticed.

In fairness to Ollie though, he is the one relinquishing his position for Ing's. The one playing out of what is his natural position. Ing's went off at 67min at 81 Ollie was starting the move that led to the equaliser. I do agree that he was poor though but maybe he feels let down. I think he has a case tbh.

[A'Villan]

I'm guessing Watkins is going to prevail in becoming our first choice striker.

Ings will be keeping him sharp all the way there though, and will no doubt be given his chances if Watkins has a lapse in form.

[allani]

18 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

I'm guessing Watkins is going to prevail in becoming our first choice striker.

Ings will be keeping him sharp all the way there though, and will no doubt be given his chances if Watkins has a lapse in form.

He needs to find some form first.   (And that applies to either / both of them!)

[gwi1890]

34 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

In fairness to Ollie though, he is the one relinquishing his position for Ing's. The one playing out of what is his natural position. Ing's went off at 67min at 81 Ollie was starting the move that led to the equaliser. I do agree that he was poor though but maybe he feels let down. I think he has a case tbh.

But he isn’t, he’s playing centre forward in possession and is wide out of possession and in transition which is a position he often occupied under Smith when playing lone striker.

[A'Villan]

13 minutes ago, allani said:

He needs to find some form first.   (And that applies to either / both of them!)

Yeah, I don't agree necessarily, especially in regards to Watkins.

People say Smith had a counter attacking approach by the time we arrived at this season, I don't agree there either. I suppose that's one for another thread. 

People also say Watkins' decision making is entirely his to be held accountable for.

I'm of the mind there's an equal possibility he's been asked to play a certain way now that we've had a change of personnel and then of course the change of management. 

I rate Watkins quite highly and I look forward to seeing if he can let this recent run be a blip as he looks on to a much better time.

Edited January 17, 2022 by A'Villan

[Corleone]

Quote

Paul Merson has urged Arsenal to attempt to sign striker Ollie Watkins from Aston Villa.

The Gunners are targeting a centre-forward given the uncertain futures surrounding their current options in the position.

Metro News

 

[allani]

18 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Yeah, I don't agree necessarily, especially in regards to Watkins.

People say Smith had a counter attacking approach by the time we arrived at this season, I don't agree there either. I suppose that's one for another thread. 

People also say Watkins' decision making is entirely his to be held accountable for.

I'm of the mind there's an equal possibility he's been asked to play a certain way now that we've had a change of personnel and then of course the change of management. 

I rate Watkins quite highly and I look forward to seeing if he can let this recent run be a blip as he looks on to a much better time.

Absolutely agreed on the last bit.  If Ollie hits some form and starts scoring for fun being fed by Coutinho and Buendia then we are all laughing (in a good way!) and the fee we paid will look like the bargain of the century.  However, one thing is absolutely certain - the expectations of Ollie in the new system will be very different to what they were last year and he needs to find a way of making that work.  Not all elements but some of the key ones.  He needs to show that he can adapt to that - because we aren't going back to last year's style of play just to suit Ollie.

[avfc1982am]

I would bet that take one or the other out of the line up and both would produce more and we'd see better performances from both.

[spiezels]

He’s a young player having a bad run of form. 
It’s his 2nd season in the prem. 

Plenty to learn, plenty of time to do it. 
Needs a confidence boost!