How we miss Kieffer Moore

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Head to head with Robert Glatzel

Mins per goal
Moore: 185
Glatzel: 258

Goals per start
Moore: 0.47
Glatzel: 0.17

Goals per sub appearance
Moore: 0
Glatzel: 0.28

Win percentage when starting
Moore: 41%
Glatzel: 34%

Mins per goal attempt
Moore: 27.4
Glatzel: 34.7

Mins per attempt inside penalty area
Moore: 38.9
Glatzel: 53.4

Mins per on target attempt:
Moore: 77
Glatzel: 81

Shot accuracy:
Moore: 35%
Glatzel: 43%

Goals per shots on target:
Moore: 42%
Glatzel: 30%

Time per goal from open play
Moore: 8 hours 12 minutes
Glatzel: 6 hours 21 minutes

Time per goal from set pieces
Moore: 6 hours 9 minutes
Glatzel: 22 hours 16 minutes

Goals scored with
Moore: Half with his left foot, the other half split between headers and right foot
Glatzel: All bar one with his right foot, no headers scored

Minutes per aerial challenge won
Moore: 7.7
Glatzel: 17.2

Mins per successful dribble
Moore: 105
Glatzel: 89

Both players have almost identical records for being dispossessed and unsuccessful touches.

Mins per successful short pass
Moore: 8.4
Glatzel: 7.3

Mins per unsuccessful short pass
Moore: 6.7
Glatzel: 11.3

In most aspects as a striker, Kieffer Moore's stats are superior to Robert Glatzel's. It's worth considering that Glatzel played a decent chunk of a season where we finished 5th compared with this season's mid-table effort.

It's pretty clear from the stats that Glatzel is almost useless in the air and using him as a target man is a total waste of time. Whenever I watch him playing up top on his own I often feel he's isolated; he gets little support from midfiel, probably because they don't expect him to win much. He's not as instinctive a striker as Moore and less likely to have a go, but is arguably more measured and wastes less chances.

It's obvious that Moore and Glatzel are very different players. We arguably play more to Moore's strengths than Glatzel's and his absence over the last couple of games has been noticeable. As he provides more of a platform, it seems to allow our midfield to push up a bit more and put pressure on the opposition. That's not a criticism of Glatzel, who is about as suited to being a target man as Kelvin Etuhu was in the playoff final.

Could they work well together? Some fans seem to think so. I think Mark Harris has done well there and provides a little more energy. Glatzel has been pretty effective coming off the bench. In a better passing side I think Glatzel could be used more effectively but I don't see him as being a big goalscorer for us.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: How we miss Kieffer Moore

Head to head with Robert Glatzel

Mins per goal
Moore: 185
Glatzel: 258

Goals per start
Moore: 0.47
Glatzel: 0.17

Goals per sub appearance
Moore: 0
Glatzel: 0.28

Win percentage when starting
Moore: 41%
Glatzel: 34%

Mins per goal attempt
Moore: 27.4
Glatzel: 34.7

Mins per attempt inside penalty area
Moore: 38.9
Glatzel: 53.4

Mins per on target attempt:
Moore: 77
Glatzel: 81

Shot accuracy:
Moore: 35%
Glatzel: 43%

Goals per shots on target:
Moore: 42%
Glatzel: 30%

Time per goal from open play
Moore: 8 hours 12 minutes
Glatzel: 6 hours 21 minutes

Time per goal from set pieces
Moore: 6 hours 9 minutes
Glatzel: 22 hours 16 minutes

Goals scored with
Moore: Half with his left foot, the other half split between headers and right foot
Glatzel: All bar one with his right foot, no headers scored

Minutes per aerial challenge won
Moore: 7.7
Glatzel: 17.2

Mins per successful dribble
Moore: 105
Glatzel: 89

Both players have almost identical records for being dispossessed and unsuccessful touches.

Mins per successful short pass
Moore: 8.4
Glatzel: 7.3

Mins per unsuccessful short pass
Moore: 6.7
Glatzel: 11.3

In most aspects as a striker, Kieffer Moore's stats are superior to Robert Glatzel's. It's worth considering that Glatzel played a decent chunk of a season where we finished 5th compared with this season's mid-table effort.

It's pretty clear from the stats that Glatzel is almost useless in the air and using him as a target man is a total waste of time. Whenever I watch him playing up top on his own I often feel he's isolated; he gets little support from midfiel, probably because they don't expect him to win much. He's not as instinctive a striker as Moore and less likely to have a go, but is arguably more measured and wastes less chances.

It's obvious that Moore and Glatzel are very different players. We arguably play more to Moore's strengths than Glatzel's and his absence over the last couple of games has been noticeable. As he provides more of a platform, it seems to allow our midfield to push up a bit more and put pressure on the opposition. That's not a criticism of Glatzel, who is about as suited to being a target man as Kelvin Etuhu was in the playoff final.

Could they work well together? Some fans seem to think so. I think Mark Harris has done well there and provides a little more energy. Glatzel has been pretty effective coming off the bench. In a better passing side I think Glatzel could be used more effectively but I don't see him as being a big goalscorer for us.

Thanks for those stats Eric - not having a go, but they weren't needed to show Glatzel is no target man! You'd know better than me, but are those minutes per attempt figures pretty good? Interesting what you say about how Glatzel might benefit from amore considered approach - with Wycombe's stats showing them to be a very direct team, I wonder if we'll try to pass it more and look to play to Glatzel's feet?

[Hilts]

Re: How we miss Kieffer Moore

Even if we played a short possession based game Moore would be vastly superior. Hes better in every aspect.

We miss him big time.

Lets hope hes fit soon. We really could do with another option up top with a bit of pace preferably.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: How we miss Kieffer Moore

Thanks for those stats Eric - not having a go, but they weren't needed to show Glatzel is no target man! You'd know better than me, but are those minutes per attempt figures pretty good? Interesting what you say about how Glatzel might benefit from amore considered approach - with Wycombe's stats showing them to be a very direct team, I wonder if we'll try to pass it more and look to play to Glatzel's feet?

:hehe: Yes, numbers aren't needed to show that!

In terms of players who've made more than 10 appearances this season, Kieffer Moore has the 10th best minutes per attempt ratio in the Championship. Teemu Pukki has an attempt 36 seconds sooner than Moore. Adam Armstrong has an attempt every 17.3 minutes! Glatzel is 51st in the list for this season, but his overall stats in a City shirt are almost as good as Ayew at Swansea for this season.

I'd hope we try and pass the ball a little more. It could be a war of atricion otherwise! Thinking of Glatzel, I wonder whether his success as a substitute is partially down to us playing more football in games as they go on? We still have a certain element of Warnock's 'win your battles' first about us in order to have a platform to develop more possession. Harris still hasn't found a way of using him to his best yet.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: How we miss Kieffer Moore

:hehe: Yes, numbers aren't needed to show that!

In terms of players who've made more than 10 appearances this season, Kieffer Moore has the 10th best minutes per attempt ratio in the Championship. Teemu Pukki has an attempt 36 seconds sooner than Moore. Adam Armstrong has an attempt every 17.3 minutes! Glatzel is 51st in the list for this season, but his overall stats in a City shirt are almost as good as Ayew at Swansea for this season.

I'd hope we try and pass the ball a little more. It could be a war of atricion otherwise! Thinking of Glatzel, I wonder whether his success as a substitute is partially down to us playing more football in games as they go on? We still have a certain element of Warnock's 'win your battles' first about us in order to have a platform to develop more possession. Harris still hasn't found a way of using him to his best yet.

Thanks, wouldn’t disagree with anything you say about Glatzel and his substitute appearances.