Well the data for subs is out there so in theory you just need to know in those games he played in when he was subbed, then its simply No of Goals/ ((number of games not subbed*90) + Totals minutes in games where subbed))
The disrespect for Andy Cole
- Thread starter FujiVice
- Start date
Well the data for subs is out there so in theory you just need to know in those games he played in when he was subbed, then its simply No of Goals/ ((number of games not subbed*90) + Totals minutes in games where subbed))
Is he still second highest premiership goalscorer??I don't know but Cole was great business by us. It's crazy to think he wasn't at United longer and he'd probably admit that. He developed his game greatly at United and scored some really good goals. I liked him a lot as a player and he took criticism for his finishing which was a bit unfair. He developed his game or was allowed or encouraged to show it more and sure he had dark moments but many quality players have. Let's not forget he didn't take freekicks and I don't think pens either.
Right.
But let's take a particular example, namely Tommy Taylor (see above):
He has 191 appearances for United (going by the official website here - which is more reliable than the likes of wiki). And 131 goals.
Since he played before subs were allowed (and before knockout matches went to extra-time), we can assume that he was on the pitch for 90 minutes whenever he played (well - more or less - he could have been carried off injured, with the team being left with ten players, theoretically, but those potential cases would amount to a statistical anomaly - and there simply isn't any comprehensive source for those details available anyway).
So: 191 matches = 17 190 minutes.
131 goals / 17 190 minutes * 90 = 0,685.
Which is - of course - identical to the games/goals stat for this particular player:
131 / 191 = 0,685.
In other words, he scored 0,7 goals per match (given: full match = 90 minutes, which is true in his case).
But how do you convert these numbers into how frequently he scored, as in: he scored X goals every Y minutes? That's the formula I'm after.
See the thing?
Ruud scored one goal every 128 minutes. Sergio Aguero has scored (for City) one goal every 106 minutes (he tops the list for the Premier League era).
Tommy Taylor scored one goal every...how many minutes? Based on the numbers above. And how do you calculate it?
If you divide Total goals/Total mins, you get goals scored per min which isn't something that is used.
You divide Total mins/Total goals, you get mins per goal, which is frequently used stat, which is nothing but how many mins each player takes to score a goal. This way we don't have to worry about whether player started the game or was subbed on.
Right, I get it (I think).
If I do - indeed - get it, Tommy Taylor's numbers are then slightly worse than Ruud's. He scores once every 131 minutes (compared to 128 for Ruud).
Note, however, that this is based on TOTAL numbers (goals/minutes) in all competitions, whereas the numbers for Aguero (above) would seem to be based on PL only.
At any rate, it would seem that Taylor is slightly better than Ruud for games/goals - whereas Ruud is slightly better for minutes/goals. *
* Based on the assumption that Taylor actually featured for 90 minutes in all the games he's known to have played (for United).
Hoddle fecked him over, his public perception and reputation never recovered after that.
I missed this thread & came in to write the same.
The Hoddle ‘chances’ nonsense has skewed the perception to a point of lunacy.
He was never a penalty taker yet goal after goal; you only have to watch his Premier League 100 club for a glimpse at the class of the man - he was banging them in for YEARS after leaving United & the teams he was playing in were miles off dominant.
They say criticise the post not the poster. . .
* Lukaku could never. The amount of times Cole takes the ball in stride in this video but yea, horrible first touch.
The man is a club legend & a large amount of our own fanbase sh*t on him with absolute nonsense so it’s no surprise he’s not widely lauded.
Comparing Andy ‘Goal King’ Cole to Lukaku
Look at the esteem Ian Wright is held in by Arsenal fans when [albeit a decent EPL striker] he can’t hold a candle to Cole - some of the posts in this thread
I don’t know where the idea comes that he has a poor first touch comes from. Some of those finishes and touches I can only think what lukaku would do.I missed this thread & came in to write the same.
The Hoddle ‘chances’ nonsense has skewed the perception to a point of lunacy.
He was never a penalty taker yet goal after goal; you only have to watch his Premier League 100 club for a glimpse at the class of the man - he was banging them in for YEARS after leaving United & the teams he was playing in were miles off dominant.
They say criticise the post not the poster. . .
* Lukaku could never. The amount of times Cole takes the ball in stride in this video but yea, horrible first touch.
The man is a club legend & a large amount of our own fanbase sh*t on him with absolute nonsense so it’s no surprise he’s not widely lauded.
Comparing Andy ‘Goal King’ Cole to Lukaku
Look at the esteem Ian Wright is held in by Arsenal fans when [albeit a decent EPL striker] he can’t hold a candle to Cole - some of the posts in this thread
Cole’s position, vision and touch was a class above likaku, Fowler, etc. Comes in the a tier behind shearer, Henry, aguero
Maybe you need to be posting videos of his early United games and Newcastle games. Otherwise just have a read of what is posted, rather than going off on a tangent. Cole improved his all round game after he joined United. In no way have I crapped on him, but he certainly was not the player he ended up as when he first joined United, he worked damn hard on his back to goal play and first touch.They say criticise the post not the poster. . .
* Lukaku could never. The amount of times Cole takes the ball in stride in this video but yea, horrible first touch.
The man is a club legend & a large amount of our own fanbase sh*t on him with absolute nonsense so it’s no surprise he’s not widely lauded.
Comparing Andy ‘Goal King’ Cole to Lukaku
Look at the esteem Ian Wright is held in by Arsenal fans when [albeit a decent EPL striker] he can’t hold a candle to Cole - some of the posts in this thread
Vialli scored 21 goals in the PL in 58 matches. Cole scored 93 goals in 195 matches for United in the PL. What's the better record? Vialli scored 85 goals in 223 Serie A matches for Sampdoria. In his best goals scoring season almost half of his goals were cup goals because the Italian cup was weird at the time. Lot of fooder. If you're going say one is better than the other at least compare correctly. Overall Cole played fewer games and scored more goals.
I didn't say Vialli was bad, I disagree that Cole wasn't close to his level. Cole was very good.
A- The goals/game ratio was picked up by Chelsea and Manchester United official sites espectively. Vialli scored 40 goals in 88 matches at a goal ratio of 0.45. Cole scored 121 goals in 275 matches at a goal ratio of 0.44
B- Vialli was 32 years old when he came to England. He had a better goal ratio then Cole despite his best years were behind him, he was playing for a much weaker side and he had no experience of the EPL
C- Vialli played in the golden age of the Serie A. He played most of his career at Sampdoria, a small side that won the league once in its entire history ie when Vialli was there. Cole spent most of his career in a team that absolutely dominated its league and in a league were defenders were a bit meah. It's one thing facing Adams, Winterburn or Phil Babb and its another playing against Baresi, Maldini, Bergomi, Scirea and co.
Cole was a decent striker who fitted our team like a glove. However there were far better strikers around. SAF knew it hence why he tried to sign Shearer and Batistuta up until he did replaced him with RVN, various English national managers knew it which explains why he rarely played for England and Cole knew it hence why he left the club the moment RVN showed himself at the door.
Last edited:
England managers who I assume then think that Heskey is a far better player? Dion Dublin and Kevin Phillips?
OK
Never seen him play. Best striker in the PL history.
True. And that means that for most of his career he played in a league that was notoriously difficult for strikers/goal scorers. Nobody posted great numbers back then in Italy.
It wasn't unusual for the top scorer in Serie A during the 1980s to post numbers below 20:
In fact, it was the norm: Platini was top scorer three times, only once reaching 20 goals.
Maradona was the top scorer in one late-80s season with 15 goals.
Compare that to the numbers posted by the likes of Rush, Lineker or (which is telling, since he was clearly an inferior player as such in the grand scheme) Clive Allen in England during those years: they all scored above 30.
Vialli was top scorer (playing for Sampdoria) with 19 goals as late as '91 - which was identical to Van Basten's numbers from the previous season. *
So - yeah. Context and all that. You can't look at Vialli's games/goals ratio on the whole without factoring in the nature of the league (for a large part of his career).
* And, to state the obvious: in the late 80s/early 90s the Italian league was the best in the world. Without any doubt. It was absolutely top notch for the 1980s as a whole too, with Juventus especially standing out in the first half of the decade - but in those particular years (AC Milan with the Dutchmen + Baresi, Maldini, Donadoni et al, Inter with the Germans, and Napoli with Maradona)...forget about it, it was insane.
Last edited:
Dion Dublin played just 4 games with England while Phillips played 8. I can't see why you would add those two considering that combined they played less games then Cole.
Heskey scored more goals per games then Cole did despite the former wasn't meant to be the main striker. Most strikers of that era had a better international record then Coley. There's no denying that with just 1 goal in 15 games Coley's record was shocking
Exactly. One has to take in consideration the players whom, back in the day, played in both leagues. Rush scored just 13 goals in 40 matches while at Juventus. The guy scored 47 goals in 65 games in 1983-1984 season with Liverpool. Denis Bergkamp scored just 22 goals in 72 appearances with Inter. The guy went on scoring 120 goals in 430 appearances with Arsenal. Ravanelli scored 41 goals in 111 appearances with Juventus. He went on scoring a looping 17 goals in 35 matches in the EPL. Blissett scored 95 goals in 246 appearances with Watford. At AC Milan he scored 5 goals in 30 matches. There was a huge gap in terms of quality between the Serie A and the EPL back in the day
You're lumping in goals from all competitions. Vialli scored half his goals in the cups where the average opponent is weaker than the cups. Comparing league form is better because the average opponent is about the same. There's also less of late subs. SAF used to field a slightly weaker teams in the cup and subbed on some of his starters towards the end of games. It's also why it's better to go by minutes rather than games because coming on as a timewasting sub still counts as a game. I'm not sure how much weaker the Chelsea team he was playing in was compared to some of the Sampdoria teams. His league finished with them were 4th, 11th, 6th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 1st, 6th and won a few cups. When he played for Chelsea they finished 6th, 5th and 3rd and won the League Cup and Cup Winner's Cup. Remember Chelsea spent a lot of money at the end of the 90's and would have ended up the same way like the Serie A teams if Roman hadn't bailed them out.
This is just all wrong. We're seeing youngsters with ~10 games under their belt being capped for England now. Cole won the league with Newcastle scoring 12 in 12 and followed it up by scoring 34 in 40 and he didn't get a call-up. You think it was because he wasn't good enough? England was a mess in the 90's. His 2nd-5th cap came under 4 different managers. Player politics (Sheringham) and nutjob coaches (Hoddle) plus the fact that Englad just picked their striker and stuck with them.
He has great 2 or 3 years with us, especially during our treble winning season, I think he peaks when he formed great partnership with Yorke too, although I’d also say Yorke was better player out of the two.
But in his first few years with us, he has also been the most frustrating player I’ve ever watched in Man Utd, even much worst than Lukaku in his last season here. Also, don’t forget we were far ahead of the packs back in old days, we used to have the best midfield and most creative players In the league during those years, which serve him plenty of chances to score. Cole, being pure striker and doesn’t not do much in the build up, his only role is to score from chances we keep put in the plate for him. From my memory of his early years here, he missed far more chances than he scored.
Last edited:
I think you are mixing the 1st division with the EPL. Newcastle won the former not the latter. Shearer won the Big boy's league with a small team. Same thing can be said with Vialli who won the Serie A with Sampdoria.
You are also ignoring the fact that Vialli had a better goal scoring ratio then Cole despite being way past his time and was playing with a waaay shitter side. I am pretty sure that he would have scored more goals if he was younger and was supported by Beckham, Scholes, Giggs and Co.
Great player love him.
Great player, they didn’t call him Cole the goal for nothing.
He's right.
I hated that 'missed a lot of chances' thing ever since Hoddle said it all those years ago and every lazy journalist since then has just repeated it
I hated that 'missed a lot of chances' thing ever since Hoddle said it all those years ago and every lazy journalist since then has just repeated it
They are bunch of ignorants. He must have been fed up by the BS he read everyday about him.
I think I read someone saying if it really did take Cole five chances to score then surely that would mean the likes of Shearer would be scoring 80 goals a season with no penalties if Cole got 20 plus.
Coles stats are amazing when you consider he didn't take penalties and played in a team with multiple goalscorers
Coles stats are amazing when you consider he didn't take penalties and played in a team with multiple goalscorers
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I once had an argument with an Arsenal fan who was incredulous at the idea that Andy Cole was a better player than Freddie Ljungberg. Moral of the story, people are stupid.
How this shit even started? It is a striker who had excellent shooting technique and a silky touch vs a striker without any technique. Yeah, lets compare them
If you form your opinions from lazy journalists, then Andy Cole was crap.
If you form them from watching football, then Andy Cole was a top class striker for several years. The “five chances to score a goal” claim was utter rubbish, he was a constant menace and difficult to defend against.
If you form them from watching football, then Andy Cole was a top class striker for several years. The “five chances to score a goal” claim was utter rubbish, he was a constant menace and difficult to defend against.
The Yorke/Coke partnership was one of my most enjoyable periods as a United fan. I was just a kid in awe of it.
Cole scored one penalty right and that wasnt even at united
His numbers are just fantastic
It is a shame, the lack of respect.
RVN missed a lot too, from point blank range, that's what usually happens for most top strikers. For whatever reasons, people outside of United lauded up Owen, Ferdinand, Fowler Shearer, Sutton and so on yet never gave Cole the credit.
RVN missed a lot too, from point blank range, that's what usually happens for most top strikers. For whatever reasons, people outside of United lauded up Owen, Ferdinand, Fowler Shearer, Sutton and so on yet never gave Cole the credit.
He'll always have the admiration and respect from Utd fans, no shit journalism will change that
Good striker but needed a lot of chances to score a goal
His first season with us is what raised the question marks about his quality at the highest level. He took a little time to settle and was not helped by Eric. Sure, Eric created a lot of chances for him but he very visibly expressed frustration if Cole didn’t score and Journos and commentators really picked up on it. And Hoddle of course.
He was very good. SAF said he had the fastest feet he had ever seen. His numbers confirm he was damn close to being the best at what he did.
He was very good. SAF said he had the fastest feet he had ever seen. His numbers confirm he was damn close to being the best at what he did.
Good for him! Very very underrated
I was 17 years of age and they made watching United a complete joy.
I don't believe I will ever enjoy watching United as much as I did in the treble year, even as good as 2008 was for me my period of United support is defined by that period between 93-2002. Those are the players I idolised.
Cole was a huge part of that and he deserve far more respect. He's not the only striker from that period that didn't get the recognition internationally that he deserved, Ian Wright never really got as many chances as he deserved.
Coles PL record without penalties is the best is it not? or at least very close to Shearer.
He was insanely good and would be worth 120m+ these days
He was insanely good and would be worth 120m+ these days
The most underrated player we've ever had. He was on a par with Cantona and Van Nistelrooy.
Out of respect he prefers Andrew Cole