Hardie

[jerryatricjanner]

Sometimes Balham you should just admit you are clutching at straws and have been out debated and move on. I actually agree with a lot of what you say, just not the way you say it on too many occasions. You really don't have to have the last word every time you know

 

[foreigner]

You can't "win" an arguement with him. You can't even have a discusion with him. I find its best just to ignore him.

 

[The Doctor]

I have no idea why Hardie is being compared to Kane. This debate gets even more bizarre.

He’s not comparing Hardie to Kane. He’s comparing Hardie’s stats to Kane’s stats both of which are measured relative to the level that each player is playing at. They give an indication of each player’s contribution at their level and they suggest that Hardie’s contribution is about on a par with Kane’s. I think it’s a perfectly fair way to make a point.

Admittedly Kane has had a disappointing season overall (starting very poorly) but he’s picked up a lot recently, for example he’s far ahead of Romalu Lukaku.

 

[Tugboat]

Or maybe recognise that his pints of views do t necessarily come across like mainstream viewpoints?

Not everyone has the ability to articulate in the way others which to receive.

 

[Balham Green]

Sometimes Balham you should just admit you are clutching at straws and have been out debated and move on. I actually agree with a lot of what you say, just not the way you say it on too many occasions. You really don't have to have the last word every time you know

Out debated in which way,? By somebody relying completely on stats and apparent podcasts but won't accept such a simple stat as 1 goal in 23 games. OR that we are scoring significantly more goals in his absence than when he was playing. No relevance there of course??! Also are a newly self appointed mod?

 

[Balham Green]

You can't "win" an arguement with him. You can't even have a discusion with him. I find its best just to ignore him.

. What do you mean 'win an argument'? Why not just stick to the debate which takes at least 2 people you do realise?

 

[Penmaster]

I personally think Jephcott is our best striker we have at the club, he just needs to play as the front forward - when he plays deeper his goals dry up.

Agree to an extent, but if he is going to make it as an established Championship level striker, he will have to add more to his game and the ability to drop deeper, link play and spot a pass is within his skill set. He would struggle playing as a 9 on his own, not physical nor quick enough.

 

[Rowlypilgrim]

Teedeeyus!
Is it not just fair to say that each of our strikers has strengths and weaknesses? When Hardie and Jephcott are playing together and on form they are pretty decent quality at this level.
Unfortunately for us, they both go off the boil periodically and it’s just as well that we have Ennis and Garrick to challenge, complement, compensate for the drop off in form or confidence. I love watching our strikers whoever they are when they are on their game, get frustrated as hell when things don’t go well, but the service they get, the set up of the team and the overall confidence of the team as a whole will be influences.
I really don’t get the continued attacks on one particular player, even down to the sniping that he drops a bottle in the tunnel 🥱

 

[Justin]

Out debated in which way,? By somebody relying completely on stats and apparent podcasts but won't accept such a simple stat as 1 goal in 23 games. OR that we are scoring significantly more goals in his absence than when he was playing. No relevance there of course??! Also are a newly self appointed mod?

Are you still blathering on?!?

What's all this 1 goal in 23 games nonsense you're peddling now?

Here's some other stats for you.

This season:

When Hardie's played: (W) 43% (D) 30% (L) 26%
When Hardie's not played: (W) 40% (D) 20% (L) 40%

So our results have been significantly better when Hardie's been playing.

And the point a few were making on here, and which I agreed with, was that we're better defensively as a team with Hardie up front. So let's check the stats on that.

Goals Against average-per-game when Hardie's played = 1.09
Goals Against average-per-game when not Hardie'not played = 2.0

These are real stats Clive, not invented like your 1 goal in 23 claim.

(Source : Football Form Labs)

Fwiw I like the fact that we have 4 interchangeable forwards at the moment, it's really healthy and makes us hard to prepare against. I'd like another, and I'd personally prefer Garrick used wide more, but I rate all 4, and I don't have a bias toward Hardie either way, unlike you.

 

[Balham Green]

Are you still blathering on?!?

What's all this 1 goal in 23 games nonsense you're peddling now?

Here's some other stats for you.

This season:

When Hardie's played: (W) 43% (D) 30% (L) 26%
When Hardie's not played: (W) 40% (D) 20% (L) 40%

So our results have been significantly better when Hardie's been playing.

And the point a few were making on here, and which I agreed with, was that we're better defensively as a team with Hardie up front. So let's check the stats on that.

Goals Against average-per-game when Hardie's played = 1.09
Goals Against average-per-game when not Hardie'not played = 2.0

These are real stats Clive, not invented like your 1 goal in 23 claim.

(Source : Football Form Labs)

Fwiw I like the fact that we have 4 interchangeable forwards at the moment, it's really healthy and makes us hard to prepare against. I'd like another, and I'd personally prefer Garrick used wide more, but I rate all 4, and I don't have a bias toward Hardie either way, unlike you.

1 in 13. That was a typo. You clearly do have a bias by your quotes above. The fact we are averaging more than 2 goals a game without him and less than 2 goals a game WITH him says a lot for sure but according to you means less than that we are conceding more when he doesnt play. Even you should be able to see how ridiculous that argument is but I doubt you will because of course you are always right.

 

[Balham Green]

And fwiw I don't think Hardie is a bad player just Limited and nowhere near as good as some on here think based on a short spell over a few early season games.

 

[JannerinCardiff]

1 in 13. That was a typo. You clearly do have a bias by your quotes above. The fact we are averaging more than 2 goals a game without him and less than 2 goals a game WITH him says a lot for sure but according to you means less than that we are conceding more when he doesnt play. Even you should be able to see how ridiculous that argument is but I doubt you will because of course you are always right.

Must admit Hardie offers more than just in the goals for column - he does contribute quite well to defending from the front so I’d say the results of the team are more valid than just goals for. 12 goals and 4 assists in an injury hit half season is nothing to be sniffed at imo.

 

[Balham Green]

Must admit Hardie offers more than just in the goals for column - he does contribute quite well to defending from the front so I’d say the results of the team are more valid than just goals for. 12 goals and 4 assists in an injury hit half season is nothing to be sniffed at imo.

And the fact we are averaging considerably more goals a game without him is meaningless?

 

[JannerinCardiff]

And the fact we are averaging considerably more goals a game without him is meaningless?

You can’t put that all on Hardies shoulders when until he got injured he was our clear top goalscorer (and still is our leading scorer) and had most assists for our club.

 

[Balham Green]

You can’t put that all on Hardies shoulders when until he got injured he was our clear top goalscorer (and still is our leading scorer) and had most assists for our club.

You can't put the goals conceded down to Hardie either. Even more so!
The point is our attack is clearly not missing him. Bit of a stretch to say our defence is!