Originally Posted by
Eric the Half a Bee
Having had a spare hour this morning, I thought I'd look at how influential our top scorers from each season have been. In 2001/02 I've included Andy Campbell's stats as he took over from an injured Earnshaw and did similarly well. In 2012/13 I've done the same with Fraizer Campbell and Heidar Helgusson, Lambert and Zohore in 2016/17 and Reid and Camarasa in 2018/19. This season has been the hardest to consider in that respect so I've not included it. All cup games are included.
Firstly, a look at how many wins we had when our top scorer for the season found the net and how many we had when he didn't.
Win percentage when top scorer scores in a game:
2004/05 Thorne 90.0%
2017/18 Hoilett 90.0%
2007/08 Parry 80.0%
2000/01 Earnshaw 77.8%
2001/02 Earnshaw/Campbell 72.2%
2010/11 Bothroyd 70.6%
2009/10 Whittingham 68.2%
2002/03 Earnshaw 65.2%
2003/04 Earnshaw 61.1%
2006/07 Chopra 60.0%
2016/17 Lambert/Zohore 58.3%
2015/16 Pilkington 57.1%
2012/13 Helgusson/Campbell 53.8%
2008/09 McCormack 52.6%
2005/06 Jerome 47.1%
2011/12 Whittingham 46.2%
2018/19 Camarasa/Reid 44.4%
2013/14 Campbell 37.5%
2014/15 Jones 23.1%
Win percentage when top scorer doesn't score in a game:
2004/05 Thorne 11.9%
2018/19 Camarasa/Reid 19.4%
2013/14 Campbell 20.0%
2003/04 Earnshaw 22.6%
2006/07 Chopra 23.5%
2016/17 Lambert/Zohore 27.8%
2005/06 Jerome 30.3%
2000/01 Earnshaw 31.4%
2008/09 McCormack 32.4%
2015/16 Pilkington 33.3%
2010/11 Bothroyd 34.3%
2007/08 Parry 34.8%
2009/10 Whittingham 35.3%
2002/03 Earnshaw 40.0%
2001/02 Earnshaw/Campbell 40.5%
2011/12 Whittingham 40.9%
2014/15 Jones 42.1%
2017/18 Hoilett 48.8%
2012/13 Helgusson/Campbell 51.4%
Some startling stats there. In every season bar one, we've had better results when our top scorer has scored than when he hasn't. The 2004/05 season is the most remarkable, where we won 9 and drew 1 when Thorne scored, but won only 5, drew 15 and lost 20 when he didn't. Only in 2014/15 when Kenwyne Jones was our top scorer did we fare better when he didn't score!
Does the amount of goals a top scorer matter in this regard? Well, the three top scorers with the best win percentages scored 14, 11 and 11 respectively. Both McCormack and Jerome scored 20 or more yet didn't have the best of win percentages when they did score. However, those who did manage 20 or more goals in a season tended to have better win percentages when they scored than those scoring less than 20 goals. This shows a greater reliance on having a top scorer scoring goals than when the goals are shared more around the team.
Having someone bang in 20 goals or more in a season tends to result in the team scoring more goals. However, when you consider the number of goals scored by the top scorer as a percentage of all goals that season, when that percentage is high (so the top scorer is even more heavily relied on), so the win percentage when that top scorer doesn't score tends to be higher. On the opposite side, when the goals are shared around we tend to get a higher percentage of wins and are more able to get results.
There was a comment about what would happen if Mitrovic played for us. I think he'd struggle to get goals, simply due to the way we play. If we have a top goal scorer, we'd set ourselves up differently and change personnel to get the best out of that striker. We haven't got a top goal scorer so that means we play differently. Putting in a goal scorer wouldn't necessarily work.
So in short, if you have a 20+ goal a season player in the team, you're more likely to see more goals. It doesn't equate to more success or more wins and leads to more problems if that striker suddenly stops scoring.
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
