• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Huddlestone

Hudd has 2 or more shots per game, do you have any stats on that? I happen to think Hudd stays in position just as much as Scholes does, don't see any reason to excuse one and not the other.

I have the two eyes in my head. He has taken at least one shot every time he has come on this season, even for his short lived cameos apart from against ManU. He shoots ALL THE TIME!

To recap from gods knows how far back in the thread:

- He is the best passer of the ball in this squad (though has been a little wayward last couple games)
- He has wonderful technique
- He is more mobile than people give him credit for
- He can intercept a ball
- He can calm down the midfield when he is having a good day
- He is a powerful but wild striker of the ball
 
I would argue that he has a good shot, but is an average shooter. Made that point when this started as well and it seems we're arriving back to it.
 
I would argue that he has a good shot, but is an average shooter. Made that point when this started as well and it seems we're arriving back to it.

Which was when I pointed out that Verts, BAE, Walker, Gallas etc. all have a good shot also. I just cannot see why Thudd gets singled out for praise when he takes more shots than most but converts probably a similar amount. There are so many other things to praise him for!
 
I think he has a decent shot yes, one of the best at our club, I don't think he's got a brick shot, which is why I joined the argument and I don't see that comparing his goal scoring stats to Lampard, Gerrard, Young, Suarez, etc. proves that either :lol:. If you/whoever wanted to prove he's got a brick shot, or worse than average then he should be compared to players who play in his same position, which is why I brought up Scholes (same position, not same ability!).

Anyway, as Colin says, he doesn't score over 10 a year so must have a brick shot.
 
I think he has a decent shot yes, one of the best at our club, I don't think he's got a brick shot, which is why I joined the argument and I don't see that comparing his goal scoring stats to Lampard, Gerrard, Young, Suarez, etc. proves that either :lol:. If you/whoever wanted to prove he's got a brick shot, or worse than average then he should be compared to players who play in his same position, which is why I brought up Scholes (same position, not same ability!).

Anyway, as Colin says, he doesn't score over 10 a year so must have a brick shot.
You'll have to go back through the thread mate, I've not compared him to anyone during the entire thread and I haven't said he has a brick shot. I've said that he has an alright shot that is up there with quite a lot of our other defenders and CMs, I'm just arguing against the fanboys that think he has a great shot.
 
A player's ability to strike the ball with power or precision will never be reflected in stats as there's so many other variables in play. Just separate the ability to shoot from scoring ratio or number of strikes on target and this discussion can be ended.
 
A player's ability to strike the ball with power or precision will never be reflected in stats as there's so many other variables in play. Just separate the ability to shoot from scoring ratio or number of strikes on target and this discussion can be ended.

well put
 
I don't know whether this has been said as can't be bothered to scroll through it all at work but Hudd does have a good shot, connects really well with the ball but because are usually hit from a fair distance out the majority are saveable or just off target....
 
It's a slow day so I will put my hat int he ring here's my take

Hudd can absolutely hammer a ball but that doesn't mean he is a good goalscorer and that has shown over the years. It is the only way he knows how to hit a ball but those are often times the most easy shots for a keeper to save as they are chest height or slightly above.

Most goals we see from outside the box (where Hudd hits them) have some swerve or dip on them and those are much harder for a keeper to get to. I remember Pav scoring a handful where he hit those dipping drives that would bounce about 5 yards in front of the keeper and find a corner.

So basically I am saying that the way Hudd strikes a ball makes his target for scoring so minimal he is never going to score many but when he does they will be belters. He needs to hit either corner exactly where a keeper can't get a hand to it. It is probably too late to teach him shooting technique but if he took off some pace and added some dip or swerve he would score a lot more often.
 
What is the on target percentage?

Assuming the stats are correct, the information is there. If he scored 8 goals, and 8% of on-target shots resulted in a goal, then, assuming all goals came via what they're calling an on-target shot, that gives 100 on-target shots out of 227 or about 44%.
 
A player's ability to strike the ball with power or precision will never be reflected in stats as there's so many other variables in play. Just separate the ability to shoot from scoring ratio or number of strikes on target and this discussion can be ended.

You're completely right, we don't need stats. If Huddlestone played rugby, he would be a wonderful kicker, there it is!
 
Or lets just say, he has a wobnderful shot, but he is not good to us , because he never fecking scores.

i see what you mean....in which case and from your logic everyone from below the front 4 or 5 shouldnt shoot the ball for all teams in general

edit:- depending on the team sysetm
 
Dam you wooks. When I launch my Mr Cooper style tirade when I leave this place I will be sure to mention you!


:D I just like to keep this place interesting amigo, I'm the Adrian Durham of GG! (I meant controversial, not a ****... well, a bit of a **** as well).
 
Back