Actually Mike I have never called for DF to be sacked; what I've argued is that that he has stubbornly adhered to a flawed approach when he had an alternative available which had a better chance of keeping us up. According to SW, lessons have been learnt. Well, as Rick says, time will tell.
Regarding Gibson, couldn't we offer £3.5m for him and give him a signing bonus of £1.5m to make up for lower wages? Or will he be expecting a signing bonus anyway? I know math the is essentially the same as paying Burnley £5m but the accounting could be different.
I’m not convinced that a difference of 0.09 really moves the dial, more so in the context of the fact that either way we concede 2 goals on average. That sounds like an error margin, especially as he only played seven matches. I would be interested in matches where Hanley and Godfrey played together against matches with other CB pairings. How do you look this up?
OK, let's just agree that, when Mo played, xGa indicates we were no worse defensively than when he didn't play. I'm looking for evidence for the idée fixe that he is such a defensive liability that he is unselectable. There's no support for that in the xGa figures. Re Hanley/Godfrey, I'll do the sums. Will keep me quiet for a while ........
The constant I'm interested in is Mo Leitner in the team. I keep asking for evidence that he is a defensive liability. How about you produce some rather than evading the question?
Firstly it was not me that said he was a defensive liability. Secondly you produce a stat, which you suggested supported your view that he wasn't a defensive liability. I merely make a comment that in order for this stat or indeed most stats with such a small difference to be of any value, all the other variables would need to not have change. From my perspective I think McLean brings much more to the party than Leitner.
I'm not sure where your reference to ’defensive liability' comes from, Robbie. Leitner is not that, but his game is based on taking passes and moving the ball on. He also has the knack of good positioning to give an outlet to a colleague in trouble and Tettey in particular benefited from that when he was having problems with passing, which he has now improved. Leitner, like Vrančić, is less effective at dealing with physicality and breaking up attacks. Tettey, Trybull and McLean are all better at that, which left him down the pecking order. My guess is that his reaction to that only made things worse. For me, all of this this is an indication that DF is adjusting to English football and the strengths needed by both central midfielders, which is why we've now brought in Sørensen, Sitti and Mumba to replace Leitner, Trybull and perhaps Vrančić. I'm also hoping that Sørensen in particular will give us more goals from midfield, which has been a problem, except for Cantwell's emergence this season.
OK got it. I’m not aware he was thought of as defensively problematic any more than our whole squad, indisputably, are.
"Defensive liability" is simply a convenient way of summarising criticisms of him like "less effective [than Tettey, Trybull and McLean] at dealing with physicality and breaking up attacks". Others examples are that he's weak in the tackle, and a poor header of the ball. But so what, if his being so doesn't actually mean we concede more or better goal scoring opportunities when he plays?
Convenient for you, Robbie, but not at all what I was saying - 'less effective' does not equate with 'defensive liability'. Leitner is, as I said, a good player but given a choice between him and the others under consideration, DF chose McLean and Tettey. Trybull lost out on that decision as well. Those decisions are what DF is paid for. We don't see the players in training or hear their responses when selection doesn't go their way. He does.
I wonder how much the bid amounted to. We will surely know in the next few days. I can’t help thinking that if this rumour is true then Cantwell could have done better. Probably a Grealish replacement assuming he is off to pastures new.
There's a logic to this rumour which fits with previous reports. It could well happen and if it does it would be a good next step for Jamal after the way he was treated by Liverpool. Has the same feel as the Maddison deal.
Are we going to become a feeder club for Leicester? First Eadie, then Madders and now Jamal. Tongue in cheek guys, and gals.
