Topic: Darwin Núñez (Darwin Gabriel Núñez Ribeiro)

[Mr Dilkington]

Is this because composure, shot choice or decision making doesn't have adequate data?

Because that's my position. The underlying numbers with Darwin are elite even I'll agree to that. But that eye test, that decision making, that little bit of je ne sais quoi in front of goal to my eye is clearly lacking and *thats* the reason the goals aren't translating in line with the underlying numbers that's the reason for the big chances missed.

I just don't have the same data to explain it away. Unless you can direct me towards a number next to his name that explains the Atalanta shot choice.

I'm not being deliberately obtuse here but I genuinely didn't see the Atalanta game and given the result haven't even watched any of the goals.

I'm going to answer your question with a question: how did he manage to significantly overperform his xG at Benfica? Now you could say that it's down to the quality of the goalkeeping in Portugal and maybe there's something in that but I haven't seen evidence for it. You could go through all of his goals in the league and empirically judge how many the goalkeeper should have saved.

This line of thinking becomes a little more futile when you look at the numbers he put up for Benfica in the Champions League the season we played them in the knockouts. He put up 0.34xG and scored 0.73 goals! He more than doubled his xG whilst playing in at the highest level in the world.

Here are the goalkeepers he did that against: Ter Stegen, Neuer, Onana, Alisson.

All of his goals in the Champions League that season were against those goalkeepers.

And that's why I come back to variance.

[Knight]

Is Isak ice cold? Or average? In the last year he's been exactly average. His xG (non pen) is 0.54 per 90, his goals (non pen) are 0.54 per 90.

[Mr Dilkington]

I'm a massive Nunez fan and was pretty much one of the only people on here endorsing his signing before it happened iirc, but if you're taking more shots than anyone else in the league, you should have more than 11 goals to show for it. I'd say that's pretty obvious.

As always, the truth is always somewhere in the middle. To put his poor finishing simply down to luck or variance is nonsense. Nunez isn't ice cold in the way that someone like Isak naturally is. I don't think he ever will be. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think he will improve in this regard, or doesn't offer plenty of other things to compensate for it. I think most strikers become much more natural in front of goal as they reach their mid-to-late 20's, and very few players have the pace and movement of Nunez to continually get into good positions.

Someone like Ollie Watkins this season is a great example. He's regularly been accused of missing too many chances in the past. I actually think this was quite a harsh criticism of him, but there's no doubt he has massively improved through good coaching (conserving energy between the width of the posts etc) and greater confidence/experience. And yes, he is also probably on a "hot streak" that he will struggle to live up to in future seasons, but that doesn't mean he hasn't made certain progressions in his game that should continue until he moves beyond his peak years.

The biggest thing Nunez needs to change is not going for power over placement all of the time. If you are shooting from 30 yards then sure, you need to focus on power in order to beat most goalkeepers. But on Sunday there was no need to shoot with so much power from eight yards. He could have hit that ball half as hard and put it towards Henderson's right, and he would never have saved it. That's not unlucky, or variance. It's poor placement, and a regular fault we have seen in his game over a sustained period now. This needs changing through coaching and repetition on the training ground, because his instinct is always to go for power, almost as if he wants to score a goal for the highlight reel.

Do you have an explanation for why Isak and Nunez are both almost identical in terms of xG to goals across their career?

Also this isn't a dig at you because it's used a lot on here and in general but the phrase 'the truth lies in the middle' is one of the most overused and dull ideas going IMO.

[Mr Dilkington]

Is it easier to rack up xA vs poor teams vs good ones?

If say Jota or Diaz are playing more minutes vs tougher opposition it's fair to assume they're going to find it harder to generate expected assists?

Is this broken down in the numbers at all?

Again just asking. Some healthy skepticism.

Yes.

You could go and look at a breakdown of the games players have generated their xA but I genuinely don't have the time or inclination.

[jepovic]

It's kind of ironic to complain about Nunez and then bring up Ollie Watkins as some sort of role model.
At the same age, Watkins was playing in Championship, and then he had three seasons where he scored around 10-15 goals in PL.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

It's kind of ironic to complain about Nunez and then bring up Ollie Watkins as some sort of role model.
At the same age, Watkins was playing in Championship, and then he had three seasons where he scored around 10-15 goals in PL.

How is that ironic? It's a case in point that Nunez can improve his finishing, just as Watkins has done. Watkins was always a top player, anyone who watches the Championship would know that. But he was wasteful in front of goal, and his hold-up play wasn't the best (it still isn't, but again, it's massively improved), hence why he spent a lot of time playing out on the left like Nunez has.

I think Nunez's ceiling is far higher than Watkins. My point is that people need to show patience with him, but he also needs to work on faults in his own game, and quickly. Because you won't get the same patience at Liverpool as at Villa.

[mullyred94]

Does assists not count for Darwin?

[jepovic]

How is that ironic? It's a case in point that Nunez can improve his finishing, just as Watkins has done. Watkins was always a top player, anyone who watches the Championship would know that. But he was wasteful in front of goal.

It's ironic if one claims that we should get Watkins instead of Nunez

[LallanaInPyjamas]

It's ironic if one claims that we should get Watkins instead of Nunez

Never said that, you're making a strawman. I've always thought that Watkins fits our style like a glove but that ship has sailed.

[Mr Dilkington]

How is that ironic? It's a case in point that Nunez can improve his finishing, just as Watkins has done. Watkins was always a top player, anyone who watches the Championship would know that. But he was wasteful in front of goal.

I think where we disagree is that you seem to see finishing as a linear skill that can improve over time and stabilise to a certain extent. I don't think that's the case and it's possible Watkins could massively underperform his xG over the next 2 years. And it wouldn't mean he was a worse finisher.

[mullyred94]

Never said that, you're making a strawman. I've always thought that Watkins fits our style like a glove but that ship has sailed.

Ridiculous, Villas wingers actually create for their striker not the other way around like Liverpool.

[PaleBlueDot]

Is Isak ice cold? Or average? In the last year he's been exactly average. His xG (non pen) is 0.54 per 90, his goals (non pen) are 0.54 per 90.

I know we focus a lot on stats here and for good reason...it brings things into light and confirms things we don't understand sometimes.

But there are a lot of people trying to bring down Isak to make ourselves feel better about Darwin. The only thing holding back Isak from behind an elite striker is his injuries....and the only thing Darwin has on him is running fast and causing havoc. I love Darwin but let's be real.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Ridiculous, Villas wingers actually create for their striker not the other way around like Liverpool.

It's not 2019 anymore. Diaz and Salah are not Mane and Salah 2017-20.

[Mr Dilkington]

I know we focus a lot on stats here and for good reason...it brings things into light and confirms things we don't understand sometimes.

But there are a lot of people trying to bring down Isak to make ourselves feel better about Darwin. The only thing holding back Isak from behind an elite striker is his injuries....and the only thing Darwin has on him is running fast and causing havoc. I love Darwin but let's be real.

If being real is ignoring evidence and just going with whatever narrative is in your own head then count me out.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

I think where we disagree is that you seem to see finishing as a linear skill than can improve over time and stabilise to a certain extent. I don't think that's the case and it's possible Watkins could massively underperform his xG over the next 2 years. And it wouldn't mean he was a worse finisher.

Yep, we definitely disagree on that, and I'm glad we do. Because to completely dismiss finishing as a skill is a ridiculous viewpoint, quite frankly, and I'm amazed intelligent football viewers like yourself and Jack have developed that way of thinking.

That's not to say luck and variance don't play a part. Hence my boring "truth always lies in the middle" comment. So does confidence, which I'm sure you and Jack don't believe in either. But finishing is a skill. Ball-striking technique is the main part of it, sure. And that's the main reason I have faith that Nunez will become a better finisher as he matures and enters his peak years. He's not obviously lacking in that department, although I think he needs to learn to use his instep more effectively rather than going with his laces the majority of the time.

I don't think Raheem Sterling has ever been a great finisher, for example, even though he scored loads of goals for City for a while. His finishing undoubtedly improved from his younger years, but I think we've seen since moving to a team that aren't consistently putting the ball on a plate for him that scoring 15-20 goals every season was the reward of his intelligence, pace and movement, and playing in an amazing system, more than it was him becoming one of the country's most natural players in front of goal.

However, on top of being able to strike a ball well and accurately, finishing is shot placement, shot selection, shot timing, body shape, along with secondary skills tying into it such as composure, two-footedness, movement... the more things you have on your side, the better finisher you will be. And sure, some luck, variance and confidence plays a part along the way. But to say that these things cannot improve or regress, or even exist...well, again, I think that's a ridiculous way of thinking. But we shall agree to disagree.

[Cpt_Reina]

Yes.

You could go and look at a breakdown of the games players have generated their xA but I genuinely don't have the time or inclination.

This is where the crux of any disagreement misalignment comes in between me and the analytics first assessment of players.

xG and xA to me are broad, they paint half a picture. I'm sure the clubs departments are more in depth and are going deeper as you've described above, but the amateur analysts who peddle xG and xA sure as hell aren't.

A player racking up an incredible xA but negating to look at the context of it is as useful as not looking at it at all in my opinion. Does it come against poor teams? Domestically? In Europe? Is CL level European opponents or Europa league? Are the games this player is over performing their xG against poor standard of goalkeepers? Or in games or scenarios where the pressure is lower or higher?

There's a difference in playing at Old Trafford and vs playing at Estoril that these headline numbers don't bear out.

There's a difference between missing a shot because a goalkeeper makes an incredible save and one in the same situation where you allow him to make a simple one because of an incorrect or rash decision that again doesn't tend to be conveyed in analytics at this level.

The context is what I need from them.

Player y might have a fantastic xA, but if he's padding those numbers against teams from the championship in the FA Cup or the Czech Republic in the Europa League vs a player z who's minutes are coming at the Emirates or Etihad they're not created equal.

Even context as basic as substitute minutes don't appear to be presented. Is it harder or easier to come on in a game and deliver? Vs tired legs but not up to speed with the game.

Minutes with the first team vs minutes with a rotated squad or the kids.

There's so many directions that anyone can come at to pick at the validity of these numbers in isolation that I just feel isn't applied enough.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Is Isak ice cold? Or average? In the last year he's been exactly average. His xG (non pen) is 0.54 per 90, his goals (non pen) are 0.54 per 90.

Isak is the most clinical striker in the league. I don't really care what the numbers say. His shot power, placement and selection is elite.

[Scottymuser]

I know we focus a lot on stats here and for good reason...it brings things into light and confirms things we don't understand sometimes.

But there are a lot of people trying to bring down Isak to make ourselves feel better about Darwin. The only thing holding back Isak from behind an elite striker is his injuries....and the only thing Darwin has on him is running fast and causing havoc. I love Darwin but let's be real.

That is utter, utter rubbish.  Even with a couple of poorer matches recently, Darwin is still on a non-penalty goal involvement every 99 mins; Isak is at on every 126, and has played almost the same amount as Darwin.  Cole Palmer, btw, the (joint) leading scorer in the PL.  He is on one every 104 mins.  Darwin has hit the post 12 times - if 6 of them went in (and a few were saved onto the post so not difficult to believe that they could have done) it would be every 75 mins.   HE.  IS.  THAT.  GOOD.  At everything other than just that last 1% of finishing.

And he is 24.  There are plenty of examples of strikers finishing getting better at around this age. 

[mullyred94]

It's not 2019 anymore. Diaz and Salah are not Mane and Salah 2017-20.

Whats your point? That because we have Nunez instead of Bobby that he doesn't create more for the wingers than they do for him?

How many times Salah could have squared it to Nunez or even Diaz but shoots.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Whats your point? That because we have Nunez instead of Bobby that he doesn't create more for the wingers than they do for him?

How many times Salah could have squared it to Nunez or even Diaz but shoots.

You're a mentalist. Salah has been one of the most creative players in the league. Nunez has taken more shots than anyone else in the league, and sure he creates a heap of those himself, but he's not been starved of chances.

[mullyred94]

I know we focus a lot on stats here and for good reason...it brings things into light and confirms things we don't understand sometimes.

But there are a lot of people trying to bring down Isak to make ourselves feel better about Darwin. The only thing holding back Isak from behind an elite striker is his injuries....and the only thing Darwin has on him is running fast and causing havoc. I love Darwin but let's be real.

Isaks main strength is finishing.

He doesn't do much else. He also has half the pitch to work like his goal against Spurs.

How many times do we have half the pitch to play into apart from countering from a corner?

[mullyred94]

You're a mentalist. Salah has been one of the most creative players in the league.

So has Nunez?

[jepovic]

I know we focus a lot on stats here and for good reason...it brings things into light and confirms things we don't understand sometimes.

But there are a lot of people trying to bring down Isak to make ourselves feel better about Darwin. The only thing holding back Isak from behind an elite striker is his injuries....and the only thing Darwin has on him is running fast and causing havoc. I love Darwin but let's be real.

Nah, disagree on that one. He's pretty weak and isnt lightning fast either, compared to players like Nunez or Haaland. His pressing is pretty poor too.
Isak has 13 non-penalty goals and 1 assist, vs 11+8 for Nunez.
He's more of a poacher than Nunez

[LallanaInPyjamas]

So has Nunez?

Sure, but again, I have no idea why that part is being brought into it. I don't think too many people have a problem with Nunez's all-round game, although it has deteriorated again in recent weeks, unfortunately. The debate is around his finishing. Or whether finishing even exists. In fact, do we exist?

[PaleBlueDot]

If being real is ignoring evidence and just going with whatever narrative is in your own head then count me out.

Nah I agree you have to look at the numbers with everything. But some things you know by watching with your eyes.

Here's one of a load of different stats that can help;

Nunez has taken 103 shots in the league this season, with 11 goals.
Isak has taken 60 shots this season, with 17 goals.

Isak has better movement, better passing and of course better finishing. Age isn't a factor as Darwin is 4 months older than Isak too.

This shouldn't be a conversation. We should be accepting he isn't what he thought he was and trying to either change things to squeeze what we can out of him or move him on amicably if you don't think he can. And by the way, I think he has more to offer us and will improve. I'm just perplexed at the "oh but so and so's numbers are average too" shouts.

[Mr Dilkington]

Yep, we definitely disagree on that, and I'm glad we do. Because to completely dismiss finishing as a skill is a ridiculous viewpoint, quite frankly, and I'm amazed intelligent football viewers like yourself and Jack have developed that way of thinking.

That's not to say luck and variance don't play a part. Hence my boring "truth always lies in the middle" comment. So does confidence, which I'm sure you and Jack don't believe in either. But finishing is a skill. Ball-striking technique is the main part of it, sure. And that's the main reason I have faith that Nunez will become a better finisher as he matures and enters his peak years. He's not obviously lacking in that department, although I think he needs to learn to use his instep more effectively rather than going with his laces the majority of the time.

I don't think Raheem Sterling has ever been a great finisher, for example, even though he scored loads of goals for City for a while. His finishing undoubtedly improved from his younger years, but I think we've seen since moving to a team that aren't consistently putting the ball on a plate for him that scoring 15-20 goals every season was the reward of his intelligence, pace and movement, and playing in an amazing system, more than it was him becoming one of the country's most natural players in front of goal.

However, on top of being able to strike a ball well and accurately, finishing is shot placement, shot selection, shot timing, body shape, along with secondary skills tying into it such as composure, two-footedness, movement... the more things you have on your side, the better finisher you will be. And sure, some luck, variance and confidence plays a part along the way. But to say that these things cannot improve or regress, or even exist...well, again, I think that's a ridiculous way of thinking. But we shall agree to disagree.

I do think all of these things exist, I just think they matter far less than you do that's all.

For example Haaland went from being an elite level finisher last season to significantly under his xG this season. And I don't think you can argue that his shooting technique, composure or whatever else is lacking is it? In fact you would have to argue that it has gotten worse over the summer.

All top level strikers have seasons where they are under their xG. Lewandowski, Ronaldo, Suarez, Messi, whoever you care to name.

[mullyred94]

Sure, but again, I have no idea why that part is being brought into it. I don't think too many people have a problem with Nunez's all-round game, although it has deteriorated again in recent weeks, unfortunately. The debate is around his finishing. Or whether finishing even exists. In fact, do we exist?

Well not directly to you but I've seen the number branded only 20 league goals since he joined etc, hence why I brought up his creatively.

I have more of a problem with Diaz personally then Mo or Darwin but I do understand the strengths that Diaz does have.

 

[Cpt_Reina]

Nah, disagree on that one. He's pretty weak and isnt lightning fast either, compared to players like Nunez or Haaland. His pressing is pretty poor too.
Isak has 13 non-penalty goals and 1 assist, vs 11+8 for Nunez.
He's more of a poacher than Nunez

No dog in this fight but how much consideration do you give to the fact Isak is playing for Newcastle with their shite squad and under Eddie howe rather than Darwin who's playing for Klopp alongside Premier league greats in Salah, Trent and Robbo and a much higher quality of teammate in general?

Assists and npg are probably harder to come by for Isak no?

[mullyred94]

No dog in this fight but how much consideration do you give to the fact Isak is playing for Newcastle with their shite squad and under Eddie howe rather than Darwin who's playing for Klopp alongside Premier league greats in Salah, Trent and Robbo and a much higher quality of teammate in general?

Assists and npg are probably harder to come by for Isak no?

Isak is a completely different forward to Nunez, his more similar to Haaland.

[Mr Dilkington]

This is where the crux of any disagreement misalignment comes in between me and the analytics first assessment of players.

xG and xA to me are broad, they paint half a picture. I'm sure the clubs departments are more in depth and are going deeper as you've described above, but the amateur analysts who peddle xG and xA sure as hell aren't.

A player racking up an incredible xA but negating to look at the context of it is as useful as not looking at it at all in my opinion. Does it come against poor teams? Domestically? In Europe? Is CL level European opponents or Europa league? Are the games this player is over performing their xG against poor standard of goalkeepers? Or in games or scenarios where the pressure is lower or higher?

There's a difference in playing at Old Trafford and vs playing at Estoril that these headline numbers don't bear out.

There's a difference between missing a shot because a goalkeeper makes an incredible save and one in the same situation where you allow him to make a simple one because of an incorrect or rash decision that again doesn't tend to be conveyed in analytics at this level.

The context is what I need from them.

Player y might have a fantastic xA, but if he's padding those numbers against teams from the championship in the FA Cup or the Czech Republic in the Europa League vs a player z who's minutes are coming at the Emirates or Etihad they're not created equal.

Even context as basic as substitute minutes don't appear to be presented. Is it harder or easier to come on in a game and deliver? Vs tired legs but not up to speed with the game.

Minutes with the first team vs minutes with a rotated squad or the kids.

There's so many directions that anyone can come at to pick at the validity of these numbers in isolation that I just feel isn't applied enough.

With all this being said, how would you explain or assess Núñez scoring all those goals against Bayern, Barcelona, Ajax and ourselves? Against arguably 3 of the 5 best goalkeepers in the world at that time + Onana who has been an excellent shot-stopper this season.

[wige]

This is where the crux of any disagreement misalignment comes in between me and the analytics first assessment of players.

xG and xA to me are broad, they paint half a picture. I'm sure the clubs departments are more in depth and are going deeper as you've described above, but the amateur analysts who peddle xG and xA sure as hell aren't.

A player racking up an incredible xA but negating to look at the context of it is as useful as not looking at it at all in my opinion. Does it come against poor teams? Domestically? In Europe? Is CL level European opponents or Europa league? Are the games this player is over performing their xG against poor standard of goalkeepers? Or in games or scenarios where the pressure is lower or higher?

There's a difference in playing at Old Trafford and vs playing at Estoril that these headline numbers don't bear out.

There's a difference between missing a shot because a goalkeeper makes an incredible save and one in the same situation where you allow him to make a simple one because of an incorrect or rash decision that again doesn't tend to be conveyed in analytics at this level.

The context is what I need from them.

Player y might have a fantastic xA, but if he's padding those numbers against teams from the championship in the FA Cup or the Czech Republic in the Europa League vs a player z who's minutes are coming at the Emirates or Etihad they're not created equal.

Even context as basic as substitute minutes don't appear to be presented. Is it harder or easier to come on in a game and deliver? Vs tired legs but not up to speed with the game.

Minutes with the first team vs minutes with a rotated squad or the kids.

There's so many directions that anyone can come at to pick at the validity of these numbers in isolation that I just feel isn't applied enough.

Couldn't agree more.

Also, comparing players that are expected to perform at the level of an elite Premier League/Champions League level footballer using stats that include averages from players of all quality across 5 different leagues is not a viable comparison, imo. Those numbers really need to be narrowed down to, for example, the xG of strikers that have finished in the top 4 positions of those 5 leagues. Or at least something that more closely focuses those averages to levels we expect of our players.

[Stevo]

Darwin has hit the post 12 times - if 6 of them went in (and a few were saved onto the post so not difficult to believe that they could have done) it would be every 75 mins.   HE.  IS.  THAT.  GOOD. 

Hitting the post isn’t bad luck, it’s still missing the target. You might as well say if half the shots he’d hit wide had gone in he’d be up for golden boot. They didn’t go in.

All this talk of stats is madness these days, does nobody watch football with their eyes anymore? The numbers can be interesting but they don’t define everything - you can judge a player by looking as well believe it or not.

[Mr Dilkington]

Couldn't agree more.

Also, comparing players that are expected to perform at the level of an elite Premier League/Champions League level footballer using stats that include averages from players of all quality across 5 different leagues is not a viable comparison, imo. Those numbers really need to be narrowed down to, for example, the xG of strikers that have finished in the top 4 positions of those 5 leagues. Or at least something that more closely focuses those averages to levels we expect of our players.

I posted a list of players (9 of them) with better goals and assists p90 a few pages back - only from the top 5 leagues and they're all in the top 4 of their respective leagues. The only one that would be attainable/realistic for us is Openda.

I could use xG+xA but if I did that you're just left with Kane and Mbappe.

[PaleBlueDot]

That is utter, utter rubbish.  Even with a couple of poorer matches recently, Darwin is still on a non-penalty goal involvement every 99 mins; Isak is at on every 126, and has played almost the same amount as Darwin.  Cole Palmer, btw, the (joint) leading scorer in the PL.  He is on one every 104 mins.  Darwin has hit the post 12 times - if 6 of them went in (and a few were saved onto the post so not difficult to believe that they could have done) it would be every 75 mins.   HE.  IS.  THAT.  GOOD.  At everything other than just that last 1% of finishing.

And he is 24.  There are plenty of examples of strikers finishing getting better at around this age.

I never said Darwin won't get better. I don't know why everyone gets triggered by saying Isak is a better striker. It's not just his finishing, he overall play is better.

Saying "he is that good" if he just would have scored some of the big chances missed doesn't make sense because he isn't scoring these chances. He doesn't even have an average finishing rate for his big chances. It's well below. 2 years now at the club. Until he brings that up this coulda shoulda woulda can go on forever.

Darwin might well outstrip him in the future if he changes and I back him to. But right now he isn't on the same level. Nothing wrong with accepting that.

[mullyred94]

Hitting the post isn’t bad luck, it’s still missing the target. You might as well say if half the shots he’d hit wide had gone in he’d be up for golden boot. They didn’t go in.

All this talk of stats is madness these days, does nobody watch football with their eyes anymore? The numbers can be interesting but they don’t define everything - you can judge a player by looking as well believe it or not.

What about when the keeper saves it onto the post?

[JackWard33]

No dog in this fight but how much consideration do you give to the fact Isak is playing for Newcastle with their shite squad and under Eddie howe rather than Darwin who's playing for Klopp alongside Premier league greats in Salah, Trent and Robbo and a much higher quality of teammate in general?

Assists and npg are probably harder to come by for Isak no?

What are Callum Wilson's assists and npg like in the same team as Isak?

Isak's a very good forward... it really doesn't have much to do with Darwin

You can compare Darwin's production to his time at Benfica.. or to other Liverpool forwards.. or to when he plays for Uruguay... or the surface level goals and assists or the underlying numbers ... there's not really a way to parse it so its not elite - you have to really work hard with sample size, or a slice of time or one competition in one period of time to find conditions where he's not generating attacking out put at an elite level and even then he's only ever very good
 

[JackWard33]

Hitting the post isn’t bad luck,

Yeah. It is.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

What about when the keeper saves it onto the post?

Nunez hit the target on Sunday, but it was still a bad finish. It wasn't a sitter by any means because the ball came to him quickly, and he did well to generate such power, as he usually does. But he still had enough time to place the ball more towards the corner. That's not bad luck. There will be other times when it is bad luck, because he has done as much as you can expect him to with a chance, but it hasn't gone in for whatever reason.

Equally, it would be ridiculous to blame Sunday's result on him given that Jota and Jones missed even easier chances. But there have been other even costlier moments where his bad finishing has clearly let us down, most notably Luton away, which personally I look back on as our worst result of the season, and Atalanta at home when he should have put us 1-0 up with a 1v1.

[PaleBlueDot]

Yeah. It is.

If it isn't post and in it's off target.

[Coolie High]

Whats your point? That because we have Nunez instead of Bobby that he doesn't create more for the wingers than they do for him?

How many times Salah could have squared it to Nunez or even Diaz but shoots.

Salah creates more big chances than any other forward in the league the last time I checked? Is that wrong?