Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 22:14:00 GMT
We paid £5.22m for him 2.5 years ago. Hopefully at least made most of that back. Where you get £5m from? |
|
|
|
Post by hal9thou on Jul 1, 2019 23:19:30 GMT
100% Warburton's ambition has always outweighed his ability, and this wretched piece of business encapsulats that. We have no one remotely approaching Smith's mpg and anyone with that kind of stat will cost more than we can afford. You can use a big man and play football as long as you have width up top. |
|
|
|
Post by Stanley75 on Jul 1, 2019 23:25:01 GMT
We paid £5.22m for him 2.5 years ago. Hopefully at least made most of that back. Where you get £5m from? Sorry, typo. Meant £522k. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginger Ninja on Jul 1, 2019 23:25:25 GMT
Mark Hillman reckons the fee is around £150k. Shocking if true. Jesus Christ...if that's true the lot of them need their heads tested. Or banged against a wall. |
|
|
|
Post by hal9thou on Jul 1, 2019 23:29:43 GMT
Mark Hillman reckons the fee is around £150k. Shocking if true. So we loose an incredibly useful asset for the price of a good night out. Could have crowdfunded that to keep him. First big mistake of new regime. |
|
|
|
Post by davieqpr on Jul 2, 2019 0:14:57 GMT
We paid £5.22m for him 2.5 years ago. Hopefully at least made most of that back. It was £500k which could rise to £1m with incentives. Don't know where you plucked that figure from. Smith was alright on his day but because he let the ball hit his head no one knew where the ball was going to go. Was just used more to shore up the defence late on in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by Stanley75 on Jul 2, 2019 0:24:19 GMT
It was a typo Davie. See my post above yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by esoxlucius on Jul 2, 2019 8:02:25 GMT
Mark Hillman reckons the fee is around £150k. Shocking if true. So we loose an incredibly useful asset for the price of a good night out. Could have crowdfunded that to keep him. First big mistake of new regime. £750k seems to be the figure. I suppose once Gregory left and Morrison went out on loan to Shrewsbury their hand was forced to spend a bit more. |
|
|
|
Post by West Acton on Jul 2, 2019 9:38:24 GMT
Surprised people are more upset about this one more then when Sylla left who was all round better player and finisher
I would rather have retained him
|
|
|
|
Post by Stanley75 on Jul 2, 2019 10:00:20 GMT
Surprised people are more upset about this one more then when Sylla left who was all round better player and finisher Probably because Smith had a better goals per minutes ratio... |
|
|
|
Post by West Acton on Jul 2, 2019 11:14:17 GMT
Did he Stan I got hold hands up and say no sure if break down. But personally if there was one chance I would rather it fell to Sylla then Smith
|
|
|
|
Post by shepherdsmush on Jul 2, 2019 11:31:49 GMT
Surprised people are more upset about this one more then when Sylla left who was all round better player and finisher Probably because Smith had a better goals per minutes ratio... I would bet that putting all games and goals in all competitions together and Sylla had a better goals to minutes ratio by at least 20 mins.....  Anyone with eyes could see that Sylla was a better finisher though. That said, I've got nothing against Big Smith and hope he does well at Millwall barring the 2 games against us. Will certainly get a good reception at LR. |
|
|
|
Post by davieqpr on Jul 2, 2019 12:29:00 GMT
It was a typo Davie. See my post above yours. Yeh, sometimes I get the old fat finger as well. Reading back seemed a bit jumping down your throat . Sorry wasn't meant. Respect. |
|
|
|
Post by hal9thou on Jul 2, 2019 12:29:51 GMT
Syllas stats are rubbish. Not even in the same ballpark. He looked good but the form just isn't in the book. Handsome is as handsome does, and Sylla on the whole did not.
Smith found the back of the net once every 190 minutes despite Fulham and Rs neither of who remotely used him properly.
Funnily enough when he left the Ruperts this exact same debate took place. i wouldn't give a toss, its just that a one goal in two striker at this level wont be coming anywhere near LR for the forseeable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stanley75 on Jul 2, 2019 12:41:06 GMT
Yeh, sometimes I get the old fat finger as well. Reading back seemed a bit jumping down your throat . Sorry wasn't meant. Respect. Thanks Davie. No worries pal. 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by 1qprdk on Jul 2, 2019 12:45:13 GMT
Syllas stats are rubbish. Not even in the same ballpark. He looked good but the form just isn't in the book. Handsome is as handsome does, and Sylla on the whole did not. Smith found the back of the net once every 190 minutes despite Fulham and Rs neither of who remotely used him properly. Funnily enough when he left the Ruperts this exact same debate took place. i wouldn't give a toss, its just that a one goal in two striker at this level wont be coming anywhere near LR for the forseeable.Let´s wait and see. Agree that Smith was a useful player, but if the manager has been honest with him, and told him he can´t promise him starting appearances, then it's good business for all concerned IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by West Acton on Jul 2, 2019 20:47:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by esoxlucius on Jul 5, 2019 9:40:34 GMT
Syllas stats are rubbish. Not even in the same ballpark. He looked good but the form just isn't in the book. Handsome is as handsome does, and Sylla on the whole did not. Smith found the back of the net once every 190 minutes despite Fulham and Rs neither of who remotely used him properly. Funnily enough when he left the Ruperts this exact same debate took place. i wouldn't give a toss, its just that a one goal in two striker at this level wont be coming anywhere near LR for the forseeable. Matt Smith 0.23 goals per game for QPR. Idrissa Sylla 0.28 goals per game for QPR. Indsiputable facts that Sylla was the better striker. Washington 0.14 goals per game and Charlie Austin 0.55 goals per game as a comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by Stanley75 on Jul 5, 2019 10:05:51 GMT
Matt Smith 0.23 goals per game for QPR. Idrissa Sylla 0.28 goals per game for QPR. Indsiputable facts that Sylla was the better striker. Washington 0.14 goals per game and Charlie Austin 0.55 goals per game as a comparison. I think Hal is going by goals per minutes, not games (keeping in mind he normally came off the bench); and over his career too, not just for QPR. Wouldn't that give you a different result? |
|
|
|
Post by esoxlucius on Jul 5, 2019 10:10:50 GMT
As you only get the chance to win, or lose a game during the game, goals per game is a more important statistic. Tom Hitchcock has the best ever goals per minute ratio for QPR but you wouldn't want him up front for us next season would you?
|
|
|
|
Post by hal9thou on Jul 5, 2019 10:42:16 GMT
Matt Smith 0.23 goals per game for QPR. Idrissa Sylla 0.28 goals per game for QPR. Indsiputable facts that Sylla was the better striker. Washington 0.14 goals per game and Charlie Austin 0.55 goals per game as a comparison. Of course it does. Some people simply don't understand how you interpret data. You can't say A is a 'indisputably' better than B on the basis of experience at one club, where A might have been a bench player, or might have been operating out of position, or playing in a set up that disadvantaged them. That's why you look at the career average, to level the playing field. When you look at their career averages, you'll find out immediately who did the business and who did not. Sylla runs at a goal every 215 minutes. Matt Smith: 193. |
|
|
|
Post by West Acton on Jul 5, 2019 11:33:04 GMT
Disagree, personally not interested in career average or how a player done elsewhere interested in his performances for us
Park perfect example his stats or average would look great cause of his career Man Utd but what good did that do us?? Add Hateley to that and many more
|
|
|
|
Post by Stanley75 on Jul 5, 2019 11:33:27 GMT
Tom Hitchcock has the best ever goals per minute ratio for QPR but you wouldn't want him up front for us next season would you? Again, he's going by career average, not just for QPR. Anyway, I'll leave you and Hal to slug this one out  |
|
|
|
Post by esoxlucius on Jul 5, 2019 11:37:28 GMT
I think Hal is going by goals per minutes, not games (keeping in mind he normally came off the bench); and over his career too, not just for QPR. Wouldn't that give you a different result? Of course it does. Some people simply don't understand how you interpret data. You can't say A is a 'indisputably' better than B on the basis of experience at one club, where A might have been a bench player, or might have been operating out of position, or playing in a set up that disadvantaged them. That's why you look at the career average, to level the playing field. When you look at their career averages, you'll find out immediately who did the business and who did not. Sylla runs at a goal every 215 minutes. Matt Smith: 193. QPR fans are only interested in them doing the business for QPR and clearly Sylla did a better job than Matt Smith at QPR. You can introduce as many variables as you like, division played, position played, data point distribution over time etc. but it won't detract from the fact that Sylla scored more goals per game than Smith for QPR. |
|
|
|
Post by Tarbie on Jul 5, 2019 11:51:35 GMT
Not sure why some are slating the club over Smith leaving.
As I understand it Smith met with Warburton and asked if he was going to be first choice striker. Quite rightly Warburton told him that he wouldn't, as such Smith wanted the move.
What else were we meant to do? Keep him here unhappy for a season and then let him move for free? Millwall have been courting him for a while, and I'm sure we got as much out of them as we could. Good business for all concerned in my opinion!
|
|
|
|
Post by hal9thou on Jul 6, 2019 13:00:52 GMT
Of course it does. Some people simply don't understand how you interpret data. You can't say A is a 'indisputably' better than B on the basis of experience at one club, where A might have been a bench player, or might have been operating out of position, or playing in a set up that disadvantaged them. That's why you look at the career average, to level the playing field. When you look at their career averages, you'll find out immediately who did the business and who did not. Sylla runs at a goal every 215 minutes. Matt Smith: 193. QPR fans are only interested in them doing the business for QPR and clearly Sylla did a better job than Matt Smith at QPR. You can introduce as many variables as you like, division played, position played, data point distribution over time etc. but it won't detract from the fact that Sylla scored more goals per game than Smith for QPR. Here's anothe one: QPR assists: Matt Smith 22 Idrissa Sylla: 3 Factor those in and you simply can't say that Sylla did a better job for us. I personally thought and said that both Smith & Sylla were poorly managed at Rs. The real problem is the way the club has been run. |
|
|
|
Post by West Acton on Jul 6, 2019 13:02:00 GMT
22 assists no way am i believing that
|
|
|
|
Post by acricketer on Jul 6, 2019 13:47:55 GMT
Don't forget he also won 53 penalties..if the refs were wearing glasses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2019 13:48:10 GMT
22 assists no way am i believing that Need to check that but does seem possible with the amount of knock downs from long balls etc |
|
|
|
Post by West Acton on Jul 6, 2019 14:09:56 GMT
Don’t think he got his head on 22 balls
|
|
