I see no reason to apply different principles to JA. And he still has an impressive scoring record in non-penalty goals. Duffy doesn't have that yet. To turn the tables on you, are you seriously trying to suggest that a striker who scores 20 goals in a season, with half of them from penalties, is as useful as a striker who scores 20 goals in a season but who doesn't take the penalties? Fine if you are, but I'm not going to be able to take your argument seriously if that's the case."Kernow Yellow" wrote:Any sort of comparison of JA with RD is going to make me laugh really quite a lot.
Funny this conversation has come round to Johnny Aldridge, as I was going to ask you (GY) whether you thought his knack of scoring more than one goal in a game, and accuracy with penalties, should detract from his impressive scoring record too.
Anyway, the comparison is perfectly valid. No-one is trying to claim that Duffy is as good as Aldridge - if he were, he wouldn't be playing in the Conference. But the goalscoring charts (at their respective levels) speak for themselves. And Aldo received considerably better service, from both wide players and strike partners, than Duffy ever has.
And as for the booing argument - if you criticise the whole team after a shocking performance, then fair enough. But if you single out Duffy for abuse, either during or after a game, then shame on you quite frankly. As you say, he's the best of what we've got, so let's get behind him, shall we?
There is no comparison with JA. JA was a much more impressive striker, and not just in the relative to divisional sense. He had intelligence, pace, dragged defenders all over the place, he worked with his team mates and not as an individual, and he didn't have the prima donna attitude of Duffy. And if that were not enough, he scored far more from open play. The better service he had was a result of the better standard we played at, and in compensation, he had to play against much better defenders, so that argument falls flat.
As for the booing argument, I'm not sure why you are choosing to repeat the point in response to me. I agree with you completely on that.