• 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

Not playing Defoe more is costing us

Modric THFC said:
He's actually behind Saha and Pavlyuchenko but that doesn't play into your argument.

As for the general comparing VdV to Defoe stats wise. Its completely unfair to players who has spend most of his time stuck out wide.
Click to expand...

Are you taking the tinkle or what? VDV stuck out wide? That is fiction mate, VDV has not been "stuck out wide" once all season
 
In terms of the Defoe vs VdV debate.....Defoe is meant to be a finisher however Van Der Vaart is much more clinical than Defoe. Van Der Vaart is also probably our most craetive player in the final third, Defoe isnt at all creative. Then there's the myth that Defoe is quick, however when was the last time you saw him out pace a defender? Granted, Rafa is slow however is faster than most players in the head which makes up for it.

VdV has also been signed by Real Madrid, has over 90 caps for Holland whereas Defeo is in and out of the England squad (not team) and no other remotely top English team has ever tried to sign him

More generally, this sort of post is very typical when a player hasnt been playing for a while....suddenly fans opinion of the dropped player rises as they forget his failings and think he's the solution to all the teams problems. What then happens is the player gets a recall for 2 or 3 games and then those fans suddenly remember why that player was left out!
 
Defoe this season has played 2,022 mins and scored a goal every 135 minutes

VDV this season has played 2,144 mins and scored a goal every 214 minutes.

Now that does not mean that Defoe is a better player then VDV, but it does show he is worth playing more then he does.
 
parklane1 said:
Defoe this season has played 2,022 mins and scored a goal every 135 minutes

VDV this season has played 2,144 mins and scored a goal every 214 minutes.

Now that does not mean that Defoe is a better player then VDV, but it does show he is worth playing more then he does.
Click to expand...

It shows that you need a goal? put Defoe on.

Harry really should have put Defoe on much earlier than the 82nd minute
 
colin fishwick said:
OK - lets put ut another way, is what he offers enough ? Is it more important than goals? He was largely anonymous against Sunderland for instance.
Click to expand...

i thought he was good actually, and had we managed to keep Bale on one side of the pitch second-half for longer than 20 mins, and had we subbed Livermore in for the fact he is a DM who can make a forward pass, VdV might well have got the space he needed...nearly scored too...very harsh I think mate, very harsh, though I would've left Ade on and got Defoe on with Ade as I don't think Saha and Defoe work too well...
 
OP has a valid point.

If we score more with Defoe and Ade, than VDV and Ade, then not playing Defoe more often IS clearly costing us
 
parklane1 said:
Defoe this season has played 2,022 mins and scored a goal every 135 minutes

VDV this season has played 2,144 mins and scored a goal every 214 minutes.

Now that does not mean that Defoe is a better player then VDV, but it does show he is worth playing more then he does.
Click to expand...

This stat (like what OP posted) really doesn't show that as a team we're more likely to score with Defoe on the pitch than with VdV.

If someone could show me a stat showing that as a team we score more with Defoe on the pitch than VdV then that would be some evidence towards that. Of course I wouldn't still be entirely convinced and start talking about different opponents, sample size and so on, but it would be some evidence pointing in the direction that Defoe is a better option for our team than VdV.
 
Defoe's goals with Ade
Wolves
Liverpool
Saudi Sportswashing Machine (after coming on for VDV)
Fulham (after coming on for VDV)
WBA (a)
Bolton
WBA (h)
City (a)
Man U (h)


VDV's goals with Ade
Wigan
Arsenal (NOTE: All three played and JD had a major part in the build up to VDVs goal, with Ade assisting)
Saudi Sportswashing Machine (Penalty)
Blackburn (2)
QPR
Swansea
Stoke (h)
Swansea (h)

Ade's goals with VDV
Villa (2)
Stoke (Penalty)
Chelsea
Swansea (h) (2goals)

Ade's goals with Defoe
Wolves (both scored)
Liverpool (both scored)
WBA (2 goals, and both scored)
Stoke (Penalty: Note, Defoe played 2nd half when penalty was conceded by Modric)



Defoe has scored in 9 games with Ade
VDV has scored in 1 game with Ade (last week)

Defoe Stats:

P......G.......A.......shots
21....9........1.........59


VDV Stats

P......G....A.....Shots
27....9.....5.......83

I dont know what the stats are for others scoring with VDV or Defoe on the pitch. Will work it out later.

But to dismiss Defoe on the basis of VDV's "far superior" overall contribution is somewhat bollox.
 
Last edited:
NaijaSpurs said:
Are you taking the tinkle or what? VDV stuck out wide? That is fiction mate, VDV has not been "stuck out wide" once all season
Click to expand...

True VdV plays in a deeper role and if he had more assists the point would be more valid , he has only 5 assists and that includes him taking a lot of corners and free kicks [ Defoe should be taking some free kicks ] .

The choice if there is one between the two, is not clear cut , but the evidence suggests Harry is wrong to give it to VdV automatically, which is something he has done.

IMO - Harry is getting the fine judgements wrong , which is why Arsenal with the weaker squad are in the better position.
 
braineclipse said:
This stat (like what OP posted) really doesn't show that as a team we're more likely to score with Defoe on the pitch than with VdV.

If someone could show me a stat showing that as a team we score more with Defoe on the pitch than VdV then that would be some evidence towards that. Of course I wouldn't still be entirely convinced and start talking about different opponents, sample size and so on, but it would be some evidence pointing in the direction that Defoe is a better option for our team than VdV.
Click to expand...

How about this stat:

Defoe on the pitch ,26 games [incl sub] goals for : 42 - against 21

Defoe off the pitch, 22 games goals for : 30 - against 20

So thats 2 to 1 when on , against only 3 to 2 when off.

The stats show we do better when he is on the pitch, even if you allow for mitigating factors, it is a pretty wide margin.
 
charlietheyid said:
Defoe is not a starter but should come on with 25minutes to play, not less.
Click to expand...

What worries me is that he is far better than a bench player. So when Liverpool come knocking in the summer, and he goes, starts every game and bangs in 25 goals, we will only have ourselves to blame yet again.

We talk about the need for a top striker but whats the point really?

If we sign Ade on a permanent, why should we spend 35M on a Rossi, or Falcao? People seem to think that VDV cant be dropped. Should we bench our marquee striker too?
 
VDV does not score enough goals/make enough assists to play as regularly as he does when Defoe is available.

Ade/Defoe is more productive goal wise than Defoe/VDV. If VDV spent as much as time on the bench as Defoe he would have thrown his toys out of the pram ages ago
 
totman said:
Defoe's goals with Ade
Wolves
Liverpool
Saudi Sportswashing Machine (after coming on for VDV)
Fulham (after coming on for VDV)
WBA (a)
Bolton
WBA (h)
City (a)
Man U (h)


VDV's goals with Ade
Wigan
Arsenal (NOTE: All three played and JD had a major part in the build up to VDVs goal, with Ade assisting)
Saudi Sportswashing Machine (Penalty)
Blackburn (2)
QPR
Swansea
Stoke (h)
Swansea (h)

Ade's goals with VDV
Villa (2)
Stoke (Penalty)
Chelsea
Swansea (h) (2goals)

Ade's goals with Defoe
Wolves (both scored)
Liverpool (both scored)
WBA (2 goals, and both scored)
Stoke (Penalty: Note, Defoe played 2nd half when penalty was conceded by Modric)



Defoe has scored in 9 games with Ade
VDV has scored in 1 game with Ade (last week)

Defoe Stats:

P......G.......A.......shots
21....9........1.........59


VDV Stats

P......G....A.....Shots
27....9.....5.......83

I dont know what the stats are for others scoring with VDV or Defoe on the pitch. Will work it out later.

But to dismiss Defoe on the basis of VDV's "far superior" overall contribution is somewhat bollox.
Click to expand...

colin fishwick said:
How about this stat:

Defoe on the pitch ,26 games [incl sub] goals for : 42 - against 21

Defoe off the pitch, 22 games goals for : 30 - against 20

So thats 2 to 1 when on , against only 3 to 2 when off.

The stats show we do better when he is on the pitch, even if you allow for mitigating factors, it is a pretty wide margin.
Click to expand...

Cheers guys, two good posts and in my opinion far better than just pure "goals and assist stats" thus he is more effective.

Have to think a bit more about this one before I go back to being a stubborn argumentative dingdonghead about this :)
 
for me, cant wait for him to be shipped out!! we look like 10 men on the field when he is on!!
 
I don't see why we can't play defoe and VDV. Adebayor sometimes drops deep too which in some games doesn't prove useful. It might be an interesting combination to try at times rather than going 4-4-2 which makes us very flat an predictable.
 
punk_is_back` said:
I don't see why we can't play defoe and VDV. Adebayor sometimes drops deep too which in some games doesn't prove useful. It might be an interesting combination to try at times rather than going 4-4-2 which makes us very flat an predictable.
Click to expand...


Would prefer that to subbing ade off for saha.

At the time i thought it was an utterly pointless sub against Sunderland, lets sub a player who isn't getting any service for a player who needs exactly the same kind of service. Really going to make a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back