| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't 14:35 - Dec 11 with 4070 views | HalifaxBlue |
Hiya folks, I've been so impressed with Lankester in recent weeks that I did a quick twitter thread taking a look at the Stoke game and what he offers us. Thought I'd put it here as there might be a couple stattos and wonks that enjoy it.
There are 6 more tweets in the thread if you go to twitter. If this is annoying, I've been considering formatting it as a blog post and posting it on here. Let me know what you think!
|  |
| |  |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 14:41 - Dec 11 with 4024 views | JimmyJazz |
Good start to his fledgling career, but both Ward and Edwards had good starts. Maybe you could make it a running analysis but the real stats may take at least 6 months before being meaningful |  |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 14:45 - Dec 11 with 4005 views | Darth_Koont |
Good analysis in that thread.
Lankester has Edwards's directness but a much better ability to keep the ball and use it. His crossing and set piece delivery was also very good, just we don't seem to have players that good/confident enough at getting on the end of things.
Not sure Lankester we can expect him to keep up performances over a full season but good to at least be able to rotate him as a starter and off the bench. |  | | |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 14:46 - Dec 11 with 4003 views | HalifaxBlue |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 14:41 - Dec 11 by JimmyJazz |
Good start to his fledgling career, but both Ward and Edwards had good starts. Maybe you could make it a running analysis but the real stats may take at least 6 months before being meaningful |
Of course, it's very early. Not trying to say Lankester is better because of the stats, or even that he is better at all, just trying to use the stats to show how he is different and how that may suit Lambert's system. Like the it says in the thread, more a discussion of classic wingers vs. modern wingers and how they fit into what Lambert may want to do. Cheers for reading!! | |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 15:19 - Dec 11 with 3908 views | Gooders7592 |
He'll be even better when we have Peter Crouch getting on the end of his crosses. | | | |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 16:34 - Dec 11 with 3777 views | Currie10 |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 14:41 - Dec 11 by JimmyJazz |
Good start to his fledgling career, but both Ward and Edwards had good starts. Maybe you could make it a running analysis but the real stats may take at least 6 months before being meaningful |
Very hard to judge.
Josh Carson looked good early on, many others too.
However, he appears to have started very well - long may this continue!
Appears his shirt to lose v Wigan, so another start appear on it's way :) |  | | |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 16:50 - Dec 11 with 3736 views | HalifaxBlue |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 16:34 - Dec 11 by Currie10 |
Very hard to judge.
Josh Carson looked good early on, many others too.
However, he appears to have started very well - long may this continue!
Appears his shirt to lose v Wigan, so another start appear on it's way :) |
Yeah, brilliant to see him given a run in the team. Wonder what it was that was so clear to Lambert about his ability on the training ground that others didn't?
Of course, he could be another Carson, I don't mean to get carried away. This is intended to be more of a look at his type than his ability. | |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 16:56 - Dec 11 with 3711 views | Garv |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 16:34 - Dec 11 by Currie10 |
Very hard to judge.
Josh Carson looked good early on, many others too.
However, he appears to have started very well - long may this continue!
Appears his shirt to lose v Wigan, so another start appear on it's way :) |
Would it be incorrect to say it was Carson's physique that did for him? |  |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 17:01 - Dec 11 with 3691 views | Radlett_blue |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 16:56 - Dec 11 by Garv |
Would it be incorrect to say it was Carson's physique that did for him? |
for me, Lankester is technically much better than Carson & also has a good "head up" level of awareness that you only find in confident, skilful players. I hope he continues to progress.+ |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 18:51 - Dec 11 with 3541 views | Currie10 |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 16:56 - Dec 11 by Garv |
Would it be incorrect to say it was Carson's physique that did for him? |
Seemed to be one pre season of enjoyment sadly | | | |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 19:17 - Dec 11 with 3483 views | ArnieM |
In a word:
....... presence |  |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 21:07 - Dec 11 with 3387 views | itfcjoe |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 16:50 - Dec 11 by HalifaxBlue |
Yeah, brilliant to see him given a run in the team. Wonder what it was that was so clear to Lambert about his ability on the training ground that others didn't?
Of course, he could be another Carson, I don't mean to get carried away. This is intended to be more of a look at his type than his ability. |
I think it is just a case of Lambert improving exponentially recently, something that Hurst had noticed and was pushing him on |  |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 21:29 - Dec 11 with 3349 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
Lankester appears to be able to take a set piece. That is something we are desperate for.
To offer more than Ward and Edwards does not require a great deal unfortunately. Both looked very good players on their debuts and have had odd moments since but literally it has been odd moments. If either could get real consistency in positive performances they could be useful players for us. Currently neither deserves a place in a Championship team. |  |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 21:35 - Dec 11 with 3340 views | HalifaxBlue |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 21:07 - Dec 11 by itfcjoe |
I think it is just a case of Lambert improving exponentially recently, something that Hurst had noticed and was pushing him on |
Fair. Also unlikely that Hurst would drop Edwards as he was one of his only signings that looked like he would deliver during Hurst's spell. | |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 23:48 - Dec 11 with 3235 views | harlingblue |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 14:46 - Dec 11 by HalifaxBlue |
Of course, it's very early. Not trying to say Lankester is better because of the stats, or even that he is better at all, just trying to use the stats to show how he is different and how that may suit Lambert's system. Like the it says in the thread, more a discussion of classic wingers vs. modern wingers and how they fit into what Lambert may want to do. Cheers for reading!! |
HalifaxBlue, you don't have to apologise for putting on a positive post.
Lankester is well deserving of a first team place IMO, and in whom we have a very good, confident young player that can also deliver a pretty mean freekick. | | | |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 04:54 - Dec 12 with 3176 views | PJewellisaGod |
deserves to start every game. |  |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 09:22 - Dec 12 with 3074 views | PhilTWTD |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 16:56 - Dec 11 by Garv |
Would it be incorrect to say it was Carson's physique that did for him? |
More losing focus on his football, much to everyone at the club's surprise. He was one they always thought wouldn't be distracted from his career. |  | | |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 15:13 - Dec 12 with 2928 views | FrimleyBlue |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 15:19 - Dec 11 by Gooders7592 |
He'll be even better when we have Peter Crouch getting on the end of his crosses. |
what, to head the ball over?
For someone so tall he is dreadful in the air
where's nugent at these days? |  |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 15:47 - Dec 12 with 2895 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 15:13 - Dec 12 by FrimleyBlue |
what, to head the ball over?
For someone so tall he is dreadful in the air
where's nugent at these days? |
Dreadful in the air but holds the record for the most headed goals in the premier league. |  |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 15:50 - Dec 12 with 2889 views | SpruceMoose |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 15:47 - Dec 12 by JammyDodgerrr |
Dreadful in the air but holds the record for the most headed goals in the premier league. |
It's almost like Frimmers talks out of his bottie isn't it!? |  |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 16:06 - Dec 12 with 2870 views | FrimleyBlue |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 15:50 - Dec 12 by SpruceMoose |
It's almost like Frimmers talks out of his bottie isn't it!? |
TBf I'm probably not the only one who is shocked by that stat. When ever I've seen him he's had a 50 pence head. It was spoken about on here last week.
So yes I'm very surprised at that stat
Harry Redknapp had the same thoughts
Redknapp’s column in The Sun. That post said:
“For me, Crouch is far better with the ball played to his feet and I’ve always found his aerial ability somewhat disappointing [Post edited 12 Dec 2018 16:11]
| |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 10:29 - Dec 13 with 2722 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 16:06 - Dec 12 by FrimleyBlue |
TBf I'm probably not the only one who is shocked by that stat. When ever I've seen him he's had a 50 pence head. It was spoken about on here last week.
So yes I'm very surprised at that stat
Harry Redknapp had the same thoughts
Redknapp’s column in The Sun. That post said:
“For me, Crouch is far better with the ball played to his feet and I’ve always found his aerial ability somewhat disappointing [Post edited 12 Dec 2018 16:11]
|
It's five more than shearer, it's not exactly a lucky record to hold.
Be interested to find out where that article is, here is one where he says Crouchs best ability is his heading:
http://en.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/50502.html - '"It's no good putting him up front and then trying to play the ball to his feet all the time. Peter is a technically good player but England should use his height - because he towers above most defenders.' & '"Peter Crouch is 6ft 7in tall so his best asset is an obvious one,' | |
| |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 12:13 - Dec 13 with 2663 views | Darth_Koont |
| What Lankester adds that Ward and Edwards don't on 16:06 - Dec 12 by FrimleyBlue |
TBf I'm probably not the only one who is shocked by that stat. When ever I've seen him he's had a 50 pence head. It was spoken about on here last week.
So yes I'm very surprised at that stat
Harry Redknapp had the same thoughts
Redknapp’s column in The Sun. That post said:
“For me, Crouch is far better with the ball played to his feet and I’ve always found his aerial ability somewhat disappointing [Post edited 12 Dec 2018 16:11]
|
Not sure when Redknapp said that, but certainly Crouch had problems when he was younger. Apparently down to never really having to time his runs or jumps to get his head on the ball as a youngster. But it was something he addressed as a young pro hence his goal-scoring record with his head. | | | |
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads. | |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
