The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Tuesday 11th August)

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Looking at the stats in the Champ last year:
Goals conversion - Brizzle 18%
Leeds 3rd bottom with 14% same as Forest and Fulham, 2% behind WBA.

Total shots - Leeds 755
Brentford 710, WBA 676, Fulham 671

Clean sheets - Leeds 22, Fulham 18, Brentford 16

And the most promising stat

Average age - Leeds 24.07. Only Boro were younger.

I think we were brilliant last year. Especially after the disappointment of the previous season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marcos Barber, southernwhite and w.c.dukenfield
milkyboy said:
... a side to convert an average proportion of their chances

not sure what you’re not getting here duke. I’m:

- very happy we got promoted
- but think we should have scored a lot more from The chances We created - which is supported by all the stats
- concerned it will be an issue this season as we likely won’t have 17 shots per game in the premier league and if our conversion rate stays the same we will struggle for goals
Click to expand...
We probably should have scored more from the chances created but it is what it is. In the meantime I will settle for being top scorers, bar one, the best defence,playing great football, great support. and one of the worlds top coaches. Looking forward to competing in the Premiership with confidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marcos Barber, 2 pennth, southernwhite and 1 other person
Patrick Bamford played 43 matches (plus 2 as a sub) for Leeds United.

He scored 16 goals from a total of 36.15 xG (that's 20 less goals than expected) XG =expected goals

He missed 33 Big chances!
 
  • Like
Reactions: wakeybreakyheart
ellandback said:
Patrick Bamford played 43 matches (plus 2 as a sub) for Leeds United.

He scored 16 goals from a total of 36.15 xG (that's 20 less goals than expected) XG =expected goals

He missed 33 Big chances!
Click to expand...
He missed, as in he missed the target completely or his shot was saved or hit the woodwork?
 
His contribution defensively is missed. He missed the Brum game where we struggled to a 5-4 and was subbed in the Baahdiff game for Eddie where we threw away a 3-1 lead.

He's our first defender
 
I get both arguments. People look at the chances we created last year and automatically think that someone more clinical than Bamford would have had a hatful of goals. Others can also rightly argue that it was Bamfords overall style of play fitting in with what Bielsa wants, that allowed us to have so many chances and also end up second highest goal scorers.

However if we are going to be spending the likes of £25 mil + on a player then I would much prefer it to be an attacking option as opposed to a defensive one. Whilst there will always be exceptions (Sheff Utd being the prime example this season), goals are what keep you in the Premier League, not clean sheets.

In the 5 years that Bournemouth played in the Premier League, no more than 4 clubs ever conceded more goals than them in a season. In 3 of those seasons they had at least the 3rd worse defence on basis of goals conceded. Likewise in attack in 3 of those 5 seasons, they scored more goals than 10 other teams, and ended up finishing a respectable 9th, 12 and 14th. In their first season in the premier league they outscored 8 other team and finished 16th despite having the 2nd worse defence.

This season they only outscored 6 teams and had the third worse defence, which ended with them being relegated.

Whilst I am not advocating getting rid of Bamford, if we are going to be spending such a large sum of money ( for our club at least) then I would prefer it be spent on a more clinical Patrick Bamford type of player (if we can find one), and fill the other positions with whatever funds we have remaining.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ristac, Doc and wakeybreakyheart
ellandback said:
I'm not sure, but big chance should equal goal
Click to expand...
On paper I'd absolutely agree but lucky for us footy isn't played on paper. If he'd scored 49 goals this season Bamford wouldn't be a Leeds player, yes, we'd be £100m richer, but we'd need to find someone else. McContract and Wood were both prolific goal scorers for us but it got us nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marcos Barber
I have been defending Bielsa, not Bamford. I trust MB to do what is right for us because he has done a brilliant job. People questioned the plan B that you should do plan A better. But he was right.
People questioned the small squad, playing out from the back, no lump of a CB and the intense training sessions but he was right.
Will he continue to be right? I don't know but I can't wait to find out. I've lost count of people who've said to me that we're favourites to go down and I back MB because he hasn't let me down so far.
If he sees Bamford as our best option then I'm happy, if he changes then that's ok too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marcos Barber, ristac and Aski
ellandback said:
Patrick Bamford played 43 matches (plus 2 as a sub) for Leeds United.

He scored 16 goals from a total of 36.15 xG (that's 20 less goals than expected) XG =expected goals

He missed 33 Big chances!
Click to expand...

If he was expected to score 36 goals, and actually scored 16 goals, how is that 33 big chances missed. Surely it is 36-16 = 20 :)
 
Don’t think anyone is dismissing his contribution to the teams performances.

Norwich were certainties for relegation, they had a poor defensive record and were never going to repeat pukki’s goal scoring feats. I think we’re capable of holding our own in the Prem, we’re a better side than any of the three that went up Last year.. but as aski says we’ll need to score goals - and we’ll be having to do it from less possession
 
Aski said:
I only asked the question because when someone asked Elland what he meant by big chance, his reply was



So I was just highlighting that there is a difference between expected goals and big chance
Click to expand...

ell is an estate agent... any information comes with a disclaimer
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aski
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back