I didn't say it wasn't, but VVD was nailed on too, I thought they were both fairly clear and my point was it didn't make sense to me that one was given and the other not.
I do see what is offering and his effort and attitude are unquestionable. And I appreciate that he didn't set the price. But with a higher price comes higher expectations. Caicedo is a perfect example and most LFC supporters will say, in hindsight, that we've dodged a bullet there. Let's say, for argument, that we had Ivan Toney up front last night. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that he scores the pen and the header. He mightn't work as hard as Darwin and be as likeable but I'd expect that his two goals would have people saying that we have signed a belter. You sign a striker to score goals. Unfortunately, I can't see Darwin being a striker who scores more than 15 league goals a season or thereabouts whilst playing with one of the best teams in Europe. He's just not a natural finisher. I'd love him to prove me wrong though.
What did you think of Bobby’s goal scoring record for Liverpool? 82 in 256, so less than 1 in 3. Do you think over the years we would have been better off with Toney who may have scored a few more however Definately would not have contributed to the team as much. Darwin has 26 in 76 although a fair few sub appearances. He also has 15 assists so 41 goal involvements in 76 games. That’s over half the games and probably for 3 or 4 months he was still getting used to the system and style. I think some of these days he is going to get 5 in a match and some of those that are hitting the keeper or post will start going in on a more regular basis.
What a mad game, scored 4, missed a peno, could have scored 10 and that was without Szoboszlai getting a setpiece off the ground. I honestly don't think the biggest moron on here could invest £1bn as badly has Chelsea have.
They're not the same type of player Gary and Bobby cost a lot less (albeit a long time ago). Look, I want Darwin to succeed as much as anyone. But if you want to highlight all that he does well, then you have to examine what he doesn't do so well. If you are happy with your 80m striker missing buckets of chances created by the team, fine. I'd prefer a striker who finishes them.
Adjusting for inflation, Bobby actually cost £18million more than Darwin did. (or exactly the same if you think Darwin will hit all the clauses in his transfer to max out the cost at £85mil, but that includes winning a Balon d'Or and if he does that he'll have been an absolute bargain)
He's got 7 and hit the woodwork 12 times. He's only started 14 i think and 7 sub appearances. He's only done 90mins 5 times. I think he easily gets 15 he should be looking closer to 30 when he becomes a consistent finisher. Sky's the limit for him.
11 goals and 11 assists so far this season, pretty much a goal involvement a game. 2 huge goals against Newcastle, the space he creates for those around him. We are talking milimeters from him being on 15/20 for the season. I think people are clutching at straws for something to be negative about. Jota went 45 games without a goal, hits a bit of form and finds the net regular. Conor Bradley, great to see he's settled the Trent debate by moving Trent to midfield himself. MacAllister has his best game for the club last night.
Maybe you've explained it before and Ive missed it, but in this thread I cant figure out why youre so adamant that he needs to be the one scoring the goals? It would make sense if he wasnt a big factor in the team scoring loads of goals,because then we'd be lacking goals that we should be relying on him for,but thats not the case. It seems to be a straight case of you thinking his job is to score loads of goals,and if hes not doing that,then we're not getting value for money. But the numbers dont back up your argument because hes a vital part of the team scoring loads of goals. Its just another version of the argument thats been used against Trent for years, ie, a right backs first priority is defending, so he's not a great right back. But thats always been horseshite, because every players first priority is to help the team win as many football matches as possible, and theres not a right back in world football who contributes more to his team winning than Trent,which makes him the best right back in the world. Would he be the best right back in the world at most other teams? Probably not,but he doesnt play for another team,he plays for us and he's exactly what we need. Jurgen Klopp signed Darwin Nunez to help him win football matches. Would it be great if he finished more chances? Of course it would,the same way it would be great if Trent defended like Paolo Maldini. But we dont need to rely on Trent to defend like Maldini,the same way we dont need to rely on Nunez to score the amount of goals you deem acceptable for a player that cost what he did. Because we already have players who score at that rate. To prioritise what is traditionally expected from players in specific positions, over how important that player is to us winning football matches,makes absolutely no sense. 80 million for a goal or assist every 93 minutes is good value for money, and thats before we take into account how much his play contributes beyond those numbers. He stretches the game,creates space for others,takes pressure off the midfield and defenders,runs defenders ragged which leads to more opposition mistakes, all while being at an elite level for goal involvements. If theres another 80 million pound player out there who can do that, then I vote we buy him too.
Babbs, there's not much point in my repeating/justifying my posts ad infinitum. I accept that you make some very relevant points about his contributions and the addage of the team being a sum of its parts etc. So if we accept that goals are not the only issue and that Darwin's contributions are what you expect of a 80m striker, the only other way that I can put it is that I wouldn't expect an 80m striker to miss the chances that he does.
To be fair I'd say Klopp would like to see him score a good few of the chances he lets go begging but there's absolutely no denying his value to the squad! He is starting to totally dominate games at times! But I still want to see his finishing improve, he becomes totally unplayable if he can get into positive XG territory because he's going to get buckets of chances.
Thats it. There's nobody involved with Liverpool who thinks that his conversion rate is where it should be.
Absolutely. There seem to be a bit of the two camps developing on this when the truth as usual is in the middle. I am happy with him as long as he is contributing to the team in the way that he is. However, if he keeps going the way he is going and misses 4-5 in a game and the chances don't fall to someone else in the team, it could cost us points in a game. I actually don't see him being a mega-prolific striker and as I said on here before, we don't need him to be, as long as he performs in the team the way that he is. One game where he scores a hat-trick, if he does at some point, won't mean he is a prolific striker all of a sudden. What we all want obviously is a sustained conversion rate. I have been seeing posts here for 18 months saying it is only a matter of time that he is going to burst into scoring a hatful of goals which I am not so sure about, but again, it doesn't matter as long as we are performing as a team and he is contributing to that team performance and he is at the minute. I see him in the first eleven players we need on the pitch. One thing I would say, it wouldn't be fair on the other strikers if they miss a sitter and people use that as evidence to say, look, it's not Nunez' fault we dropped the points, Jota or whoever should have scored that one. Every striker will miss, if you don't miss you are not trying and every one needs to be judged by the same yardstick. It's when the misses stack up that it could cost us. Thankfully that has not happened so far. When Salah is back, Klopp will have some tough decisions as to who starts but it is fantastic to have those options.