Topic: David N'Gog

[Hazell]

Always thought he was quite decent. Not his fault he was covering for Torres. Very harshly treated by some on here.

Also have you actually watched him at Bolton to see why he hasn't scored many?

I doubt anyone on here has. I haven't though I know he scored a last minute equaliser for them a few weeks ago at Brighton.

[SP]

Back to Ngog now please. The point about the way the original post came across has been made and we should move on.

[greyfade]

His goal against arsenal in the season opener, Boss finish.

[Sangria]

I've never watched him play for Bolton. Admittedly on the pitch he's probably not getting the service he would have had at Liverpool but his record speaks for itself I'm sorry to say.

Is that the record that says he's been a more regular goalscorer for us than our record signing? Just as with Insua, I thought we should have kept them, and added to the squad, rather than take the position that you favoured (one also pursued by Purslow) that we needed to get rid and worry about what was left afterwards. If we'd done that, we might not have been so desperate to get someone else to replace the gap left behind by someone we'd written off, and we might not thus have overpaid as the other clubs felt free to extort a premium from us.

19 goals from 92 games for us. Assuming a third of those were sub appearances (a conservative estimate), that's around 1 goal every 4 full games. Bloody hell we could do with something like that, especially at a low end PL wage. Oh, and Bolton fans reckon he's the only striker they have who can lead the line in a 1. That sounds like something we could use.

[SP]

Back to Ngog now please. The point about the way the original post came across has been made and we should move on.

[Hazell]

Andy's right though. A quick look on Wiki will give his stats but the OP seems to think he's not just not that good. There's no way one could know that without watching him on a regular basis.

[Paragon]

Is that the record that says he's been a more regular goalscorer for us than our record signing?

I was referring to his record with Bolton but in spite of that, you can't highlight the underachievement of one player to try and make another look less 'mediocre' (and that's putting it kindly).

[Simplexity]

Always had a soft spot for him, guess you could call him a cult favorite of mine.

[Crosby Nick]

I was referring to his record with Bolton but in spite of that, you can't highlight the underachievement of one player to try and make another look less 'mediocre' (and that's putting it kindly).

I don't know how he's been playing but Bolton as a team are underperforming aren't they? I expected them to be higher in the League than they are. Whether that's down to misfiring strikers, strikers not getting any service or a bit of both i don't know.

[Paragon]

Andy's right though. A quick look on Wiki will give his stats but the OP seems to think he's not just not that good. There's no way one could know that without watching him on a regular basis.

Well no, I don't think he's that good. Just before 09/10 started, many of us (myself included) felt confident of a title challenge. The fact that our main backup for the then world class Fernando Torres was a player who is now struggling to score goals in a lower division really tells us a lot.

[Hazell]

Just before 09/10 started, many of us (myself included) felt confident of a title challenge. The fact that our main backup for the then world class Fernando Torres was a player who is now struggling to score goals in a lower division really tells us a lot.

It tells me you haven't seen him play for over a year and therefore won't know what his performances have been like.

[Crosby Nick]

I disagree. Just before 09/10 started, many of us (myself included) felt confident of a title challenge. The fact that our main backup for the then world class Fernando Torres was a player who is now struggling to score goals in a lower division really tells us a lot.

That our squad was weaker than it should have been? Courtesy of the pwners rather than anything else before that debate reopens too!

[Sangria]

The ESPN stats don't match up entirely to the other site's stats, missing out 6 games and 3 goals, but they give information about starts and sub appearances.

08-09: 5 starts, 14 subs, 3 goals
09-10: 17 starts, 16 subs, 8 goals
10-11: 15 starts, 19 subs, 5 goals

So his record for us was 37 starts, 49 subs, 16 goals. That's a goal every 2 and a bit starts.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/player/_/id/84000/david-ngog?cc=5739

[Sangria]

I was referring to his record with Bolton but in spite of that, you can't highlight the underachievement of one player to try and make another look less 'mediocre' (and that's putting it kindly).

Whether or not our players are worthwhile should always be judged in relation to our other players in the same time period. Otherwise we get into the situation that you and Purslow wanted, that we get rid for the sake of getting rid, without looking at what we're left with. Because that approach worked so well, didn't it?

[JerseyKloppite]

Well no, I don't think he's that good. Just before 09/10 started, many of us (myself included) felt confident of a title challenge. The fact that our main backup for the then world class Fernando Torres was a player who is now struggling to score goals in a lower division really tells us a lot.

Also, players' performances elsewhere are not necessarily an indication of their form or quality when they play for us. When Morientes joined us, he didn't live up to most peoples' expectations, but I doubt many Madrid fans saw that and retrospectively decided he wasn't as good a player for them. It depends on the quality of the other team and the system they play in, among a number of factors. The 'fact that our main backup... was a player who is now struggling to score goals in a lower division' could just as easily tell us that he was a promising player whose development was negatively impacted by unfortunate circumstances.


I'm not sure there's really that much of a debate to be had re Ngog, to be honest.

(a) He was a promising striker brought in for a fairly low fee.
(b) I don't think anyone expected him to have the potential to replace Torres, but there were expectations that he could go on to be a decent Premier League striker and a useful option for us.
(c) He was forced to play far too many games, and take on far too much responsibility due to Torres' injuries, and much like the aforementioned Insua, this proved detrimental to his development.
(d) That said, he still displayed flashes of the quality that many hoped to see more consistently in him.
(e) Unfortunately this consistency never quite materialised during his time at Liverpool.
(f) We took a look at his development and his abilities, decided he wasn't good enough, and sought to move him on so that (i) we could make some money and (ii) he could play more often.

Promising player arrives, plays well, doesn't quite meet expectations, moves on. See also, in varying degrees, Mark Gonzalez, Insua, Babel, Plessis, El Zhar, Nemeth.... and perhaps Danny Wilson.

[thedanny]

Always thought he was quite decent. Not his fault he was covering for Torres. Very harshly treated by some on here.

Also have you actually watched him at Bolton to see why he hasn't scored many?

I doubt anyone on here has. I haven't though I know he scored a last minute equaliser for them a few weeks ago at Brighton.

I have... went across to Bolton a few weeks ago, thought I'd have a look at wee Jay since there was a free ticket going.

I kept a close eye on Ngog on he was quite impressive, albeit at Championship level. After Coyle left the club and in the few weeks that they had the caretaker manager in charge before Freedman took over Ngog wasn't even getting a game, and if he was, it was a few minutes from the bench. He's only made 10 appearances this season including those from the bench and since Freedman's come in he's been deployed in a wider role than I'm sure he'd like, with Kevin Davies being preferred as the main striker.

He played well, was good on the ball, good movement and had an effort or two on goal. Might have had an assist or two aswell if Eagles' finishing wasn't absolutely terrible. Bolton are on a terrible run at the moment and are only 4 places above the drop in the Championship which I'm sure hasn't had a good effect on him or anyone else in the team, but all in all he looked a good Championship player and I'm sure he wouldn't be out of his depth at a bottom half Premiership team either.

[Hazell]

I have... went across to Bolton a few weeks ago, thought I'd have a look at wee Jay since there was a free ticket going.

I kept a close eye on Ngog on he was quite impressive, albeit at Championship level. After Coyle left the club and in the few weeks that they had the caretaker manager in charge before Freedman took over Ngog wasn't even getting a game, and if he was, it was a few minutes from the bench. He's only made 10 appearances this season including those from the bench and since Freedman's come in he's been deployed in a wider role than I'm sure he'd like, with Kevin Davies being preferred as the main striker.

He played well, was good on the ball, good movement and had an effort or two on goal. Might have had an assist or two aswell if Eagles' finishing wasn't absolutely terrible. Bolton are on a terrible run at the moment and are only 4 places above the drop in the Championship which I'm sure hasn't had a good effect on him or anyone else in the team, but all in all he looked a good Championship player and I'm sure he wouldn't be out of his depth at a bottom half Premiership team either.

Brilliant, thanks for that.

[Seebab]

For me it's the same argument that was being used for Rafa before he went to Chelsea. Just replace Ngog with Rafa in the OP and you get this.

"Once upon a time you'd be slaughtered for saying he wasn't good enough to manage Liverpool. However, having only managed one club (Inter), being sacked in the space of 4 months and being unemployed since, are the rawk majority finally ready to concede that this man just wasn't good enough?"

Just because they aren't in a great position now does not at all change their quality before or their current potential (which may be reduced by external factors- for Ngog, poorer team to feed him through balls- for Rafa, English media making him less attractive to hire.

Poor argument really and pretty pointless too.

[steveeastend]

I think Rodgers would have kept him.

[Malaysian Kopite]

For me it's the same argument that was being used for Rafa before he went to Chelsea. Just replace Ngog with Rafa in the OP and you get this.

"Once upon a time you'd be slaughtered for saying he wasn't good enough to manage Liverpool. However, having only managed one club (Inter), being sacked in the space of 4 months and being unemployed since, are the rawk majority finally ready to concede that this man just wasn't good enough?"

Just because they aren't in a great position now does not at all change their quality before or their current potential (which may be reduced by external factors- for Ngog, poorer team to feed him through balls- for Rafa, English media making him less attractive to hire.

Poor argument really and pretty pointless too.

Weird comparison.

[FernandoSusoLFC]

His goal against arsenal in the season opener, Boss finish.

Mascherano's last game for us. He threaded the ball through for his goal.

[Lusty]

Think he'd do a job for us now as a backup to be honest, he's better than our other options (i.e. fuck all).

Same for Insua now I think about it.

[Severely]

Always got behind the lad while he was here, and wish him the very best, but I rarely felt like he was ever going to become an important player for us. Whenever he played, I never expected him to score, and always felt the team was weaker for it. Of course, being understudy to Torres didn't help with that, but even looking past it, I just couldn't see him ever being prolific and for a striker leading the line, that's pretty crucial.

[Swright90]

The ESPN stats don't match up entirely to the other site's stats, missing out 6 games and 3 goals, but they give information about starts and sub appearances.

08-09: 5 starts, 14 subs, 3 goals
09-10: 17 starts, 16 subs, 8 goals
10-11: 15 starts, 19 subs, 5 goals

So his record for us was 37 starts, 49 subs, 16 goals. That's a goal every 2 and a bit starts.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/player/_/id/84000/david-ngog?cc=5739

I hate when people use this phrase. If your going to say someone scored so many goals in so many starts, then you can only include the goals he scored whilst starting. Doing it your way just makes him sound so much better than he was. In truth he probably scored about 9 goals in 37 starts, which would be 1 in 4.

[NGreat]

He was a good backup striker who scored a reasonable amount of goals for us. Probably the third best striker to play for the club in the last few years.

[muyuu]

He wasn't bad, just below our expectations since we aimed at top-4 and this lad is no top-4 material. It was good for the money, mind. Sadly we couldn't seem to afford any better.

[Sangria]

I hate when people use this phrase. If your going to say someone scored so many goals in so many starts, then you can only include the goals he scored whilst starting. Doing it your way just makes him sound so much better than he was. In truth he probably scored about 9 goals in 37 starts, which would be 1 in 4.

If we assume his sub appearances predominantly happened on the 60 minute mark, which is a common point at which to make such subs, then we can add a third of his sub appearances, making it 16 goals in 53 "full" games. Still not bad compared to what we've had since.

[El Denzel Pepito]

Probably the third best striker to play for the club in the last few years.

Really? Bellamy, Kuyt?

[redoneusa]

I always look at the player first, let's be honest here whether you care for the bloke or not. He never moaned or complained. Always came in and did a job for us scoring goals along the way.

Didn't cost us an arm and a leg, left us with some goals to remember. Sadly I don't agree with taking the piss out of every player who pulled on a shirt for us.

He moved and we at least made a profit. Give the lad some respect for crying out loud. Seems that's not the cool thing anymore- we would rather bitch and moan.

If Shankly walked into this club many of the current fan base would want him gone in 6 months. I wonder about "fans" these days.

[And CouldHe Play!]

An ex back up player isn't doing great for another club? Love it, told you all he was shit and finally I've been validated

[SP]

An ex back up player isn't doing great for another club? Love it, told you all he was shit and finally I've been validated

No, you didn't. He left in 2011 and you only registered in March 2012. Unless you want to confess to something?

[And CouldHe Play!]

No, you didn't. He left in 2011 and you only registered in March 2012. Unless you want to confess to something?

Can I have my lawyer?

[The 5th Benitle]

What a strange OP. The lad gave his all and moved on, so should we.

Agreed and agreed.

[The 5th Benitle]

No, you didn't. He left in 2011 and you only registered in March 2012. Unless you want to confess to something?

Kaizer or Rashid, you reckon?

[Les Willis]

I thought he was ok as a backup striker, but should never have been in the position of being the senior striker for us, which he was for a bit. I would have expected him to go on and do well at Bolton, but maybe he hasn't got the service there.

[Yiannis]

He was a good backup striker who scored a reasonable amount of goals for us. Probably the third best striker to play for the club in the last few years.

Yeah actually he was/is that good that i hope Brendan pays more than 12 million to bring him back.

[Redman0151]

The ESPN stats don't match up entirely to the other site's stats, missing out 6 games and 3 goals, but they give information about starts and sub appearances.

08-09: 5 starts, 14 subs, 3 goals
09-10: 17 starts, 16 subs, 8 goals
10-11: 15 starts, 19 subs, 5 goals

So his record for us was 37 starts, 49 subs, 16 goals. That's a goal every 2 and a bit starts.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/player/_/id/84000/david-ngog?cc=5739

Well no that stat is completely wrong because that implies he scored 0 goals in 49 sub appearances which is untrue.

Also I imagine 99% of strikers could get goals with the team we had back then.

Anyway, liked Ngog, he did a job when we needed him, pity it hasn't worked out for him

[Sangria]

Well no that stat is completely wrong because that implies he scored 0 goals in 49 sub appearances which is untrue.

Also I imagine 99% of strikers could get goals with the team we had back then.

Anyway, liked Ngog, he did a job when we needed him, pity it hasn't worked out for him

I did an update on that stat with the assumption that his sub appearances came in in the 60th minute (not unreasonable), and that all his starts carried on for 90 minutes (erring on the negative side for Ngog). That updated stat had Ngog scoring 16 in 53 "full" games, which isn't that bad compared to what we've had since. If we take 08-09 out of the equation, it would be 13 goals from 44 "full games", from Benitez's last season and the Hodgson-Dalglish season. Not what you'd want from a senior striker, but for for a 1.5m back up, certainly undeserving of the stick that the OP gives him. And on top of that, we made a 2.5m profit on him. All things considered, Ngog was probably one of the better signings we've made in recent years.

[Paulie's Wallnuts]

What a bunch of bastards ay, supporting a Liverpool player like that.

If only we'd all slaughtered him we could be as smug as you right now.

Spot on.

[thedanny]

He's scored.