BobbyBiscuit Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 Just about. Lovell couldn't cut it at this level, Mackie can. Oooft!! Quote
El Padre™ Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 Lovell has 59 goals in playing for SPL clubs, Mackie has 53 (over a longer period). He's done the square root of FA for us. He's been one of Calderwoods worst signings. Are you honestly sad to see the back of him (for footballing reasons)? Quote
BobbyBiscuit Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 He's done the square root of FA for us. He's been one of Calderwoods worst signings. Are you honestly sad to see the back of him (for footballing reasons)? Considering the amount of time he's been with us, so has Mackie. Quote
El Padre™ Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 Considering the amount of time he's been with us, so has Mackie. When Mackie comes onto the pitch for us I feel a hell of a lot more confident that something might happen. When Lovell comes onto the pitch I'm filled with the same kind of apathy that seemed to influence most of his performances. If Mackie and Miller can link up the way they did against Rangers then we'll have a very potent strike force on our hands. The set up and goal was very reminiscent of Hately and McCoist. Quote
Guest bloo_toon_red Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 He's done the square root of FA for us. He's been one of Calderwoods worst signings. That is rubbish. Last three seasons - Mackie has scored 21 goals, Lovell has scored 25. They're much of a muchness when it comes down to it so it's very difficult to say that one is so much better than the other. But in terms of being a potent goal threat, Lovell would win hands down. Ergo I think Lovell will be missed because we now have nobody (until such time as we replace him properly) who we can look to to nick us a goal when the chips are down, something Lovell always gave us. Quote
BobbyBiscuit Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 When Mackie comes onto the pitch for us I feel a hell of a lot more confident that something might happen. When Lovell comes onto the pitch I'm filled with the same kind of apathy that seemed to influence most of his performances. But that's as a sub. We're surely talking about a first choice striking partnership here? And even as a sub, i'd reckon Lovell has scored as many as Mackie. If Mackie and Miller can link up the way they did against Rangers then we'll have a very potent strike force on our hands. The set up and goal was very reminiscent of Hately and McCoist. Surely not? No Aberdeen goalkeeper was kicked in the face at the same time... Quote
El Padre™ Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 That is rubbish. Last three seasons - Mackie has scored 21 goals, Lovell has scored 25. They're much of a muchness when it comes down to it so it's very difficult to say that one is so much better than the other. But in terms of being a potent goal threat, Lovell would win hands down. Ergo I think Lovell will be missed because we now have nobody (until such time as we replace him properly) who we can look to to nick us a goal when the chips are down, something Lovell always gave us. I think Mackie offers a lot more. He harries defenders and wins balls that Lovell would never dream about going for. Lovell was a lazy Kris Boyd, without the goals. Quote
El Padre™ Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 Lovell's gone - DEAL WI' IT! Done. If Mackie leaves I'll turn on him too Quote
Guest bloo_toon_red Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 I think Mackie offers a lot more. He harries defenders and wins balls that Lovell would never dream about going for. Lovell was a lazy Kris Boyd, without the goals. I'd bet if you look at the minutes that Lovell has spent on the pitch this season, he'll likely have bettered a goal every 90 minutes. And he probably wouldn't have been too far off that last season either. So I'd say your summation of his lack of goals is pish. His performance at Ibrox a few weeks back was pretty good as well - quite "Mackie-esque" with his annoying the defenders if you will. The way I see it, Lovell has suffered due to JC's desire to play with a target man (ie, Miller, Brewster) and resultantly changed the way the team sets out to play. The way we play is not so much creative as direct. I'd also suggest this has been to the detriment of players like Severin - the movement of the players in front of him is pretty much non-existent with our strikers being deployed "back to goal", whereas when Lovell played he was always looking to peel off the shoulder of the last man. Take the Gretna game where he came on - we saw some good through balls through to him but his inherent lack of confidence (understandable, but all the same unforgivable at the same time) meant he took an extra touch and fluffed it. Moral of the story - the type of striker he is gave us that different option we don't have with Miller & Mackie. The good thing about having Miller, Mackie, Lovell is that they can all offer different things, and so I feel it is hugely important to replace Lovell with someone similar but better, and I think that that will be very difficult given the quality on offer, therefore I'd much rather we kept him. Quote
Sharpie Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 I'd bet if you look at the minutes that Lovell has spent on the pitch this season, he'll likely have bettered a goal every 90 minutes. And he probably wouldn't have been too far off that last season either. So I'd say your summation of his lack of goals is pish. His performance at Ibrox a few weeks back was pretty good as well - quite "Mackie-esque" with his annoying the defenders if you will. The way I see it, Lovell has suffered due to JC's desire to play with a target man (ie, Miller, Brewster) and resultantly changed the way the team sets out to play. The way we play is not so much creative as direct. I'd also suggest this has been to the detriment of players like Severin - the movement of the players in front of him is pretty much non-existent with our strikers being deployed "back to goal", whereas when Lovell played he was always looking to peel off the shoulder of the last man. Take the Gretna game where he came on - we saw some good through balls through to him but his inherent lack of confidence (understandable, but all the same unforgivable at the same time) meant he took an extra touch and fluffed it. Moral of the story - the type of striker he is gave us that different option we don't have with Miller & Mackie. The good thing about having Miller, Mackie, Lovell is that they can all offer different things, and so I feel it is hugely important to replace Lovell with someone similar but better, and I think that that will be very difficult given the quality on offer, therefore I'd much rather we kept him. I agree with this assessment. Quote
Slim Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 His performance at Ibrox a few weeks back was pretty good as well - quite "Mackie-esque" with his annoying the defenders if you will. When he was the lone striker at Tannadice up against Lee Wilkie and Garry Kenneth on his own in the game where he was slaughtered afterwards by Calderwood for not doing enough, he outmuscled Kenneth to win a penalty when most strikers would have been forgiven for thinking chasing the ball was a lost cause and produced an excellent defence splitting pass to put Nicholson through one on one with the keeper. Unfortunately Nicholson fluffed both opportunities. It looks like Lovell is going to get the same treatment as Stavrum, unfairly labelled as lazy. I've seen Mackie have just as much, if not more, matches where he's looked disinterested and couldn't be bothered. Quote
Kowalski Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 It looks like Lovell is going to get the same treatment as Stavrum, unfairly labelled as lazy. I've seen Mackie have just as much, if not more, matches where he's looked disinterested and couldn't be bothered. Lovell (or Mackie) is not half the player Stavrum was. Quote
BobbyBiscuit Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 Lovell (or Mackie) is not half the player Stavrum was. Stavrum wasn't all that. Quote
Kowalski Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 Stavrum wasn't all that. Lovell - 0.29 goals per game Mackie - 0.27 goals per game Miller - 0.20 goals per game Maguire - 0.09 goals per game Stavrum - 0.48 goals per game Quote
BobbyBiscuit Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 Stavrum - 0.48 goals per game How many were penalties? Quote
BobbyBiscuit Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 No idea, but if we take penalties out of it, then I would suggest that its Miller's stats that we should be discussing. I think in one season Stavrum scored 15 or so goals for us, but 8 were pens. So 7 from open play was a bit gash. See also Billy Dodds. Quote
Sharpie Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 No idea, but if we take penalties out of it, then I would suggest that its Miller's stats that we should be discussing. Stavrum was very often played as a wide attacking player as well. Quote
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 Not particularly. It's pretty clear that whoever is expected to replace him should be of equal standard or better. From where I'm sitting it looks like the debate is about whether or not Mackie is better. Given our strikers didn't score many goals last season, I would say it's a debate more important than any other. We lost too many goals especially at home last season, I think that is way more important. Quote
Friedrichs Moustache Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 Stavrum was very often played as a wide attacking player as well. You sure? I reckon you're thinking of Robbie Winters. Quote
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 Lovell is by far the better player, he hasn't really delivered and is generally injured and when he has had a chance he hasn't looked overly keen to grasp it, in fact, at times, he has looked thoroughly uninterested and that is the most annoying thing about him. We all asked for him to get a chance, when he got it, he genuinely looked like he couldn't give a fuck. A player that really should have cemented himself in the team and I agree with BTR, we may well not replace him properly but we at least have an opportunity to replace him with someone who gives a flying fuck. Mackie is not as good as Lovell, plenty of effort but to score fewer goals than Lovell with the number of starts he's had is pretty mediocre. Both are infuriating for missing very easily convertable chances, but Lovell is a far better player with a far inferior work rate. Quote
Goldie03 Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 I love Darren and reckon he will score around 47 goals next season Quote
manc_don Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 I love Darren and reckon he will score around 47 goals next season Is he your lovell replacement then? Quote
El Padre™ Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 I love Darren and reckon he will score around 47 goals next season Quote
Goldie03 Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 Is he your lovell replacement then? Mmmm I would take one for the team Quote
Goldie03 Posted May 28, 2008 Report Posted May 28, 2008 Is that you doing your favourite impression Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.