Mikele Leigertwood

[Muskrat]

He was lucky to be on the pitch for as long as he was imo. He looked less agile than a double decker bus throughout! Also, not sure if anybody else picked up on him pointing up the pitch whenever any of our back four got the ball, telling them to play the ball long to our strikers. As a central midfielder you should never shy away from wanting the ball, and in my eyes shows that he either seriously lacks confidence on the ball or was too unfit to do any hard work himself. He'll have to seriously sort himself out before next saturday or i cant see him getting much more playing time than he was getting at QPR!

Agree. I sincerely hope that Brian can see the obvious shortcomings in his fitness and ability as clearly as we can.

[Snowball]

Agree. I sincerely hope that Brian can see the obvious shortcomings in his fitness and ability as clearly as we can.

It's "amazing" isn't it? Brian scouts a player, negotiates a deal, brings him in, watches him in training,
probably has him running bleep tests or whatever, and yet "amazingly" he can't see he's unfit, andor
not good enough...


OR

OTOH, for reasons we don't know, maybe a giant fall-out with Howard (take 7 pounds of Howie!)
maybe Tabb's injury/op are giving him some kind of trouble, maybe Karacan is carrying a worrying injury,
maybe Gunnar isn't getting fit any time soon, maybe Tabb or Howard or Karacan are going in January....


So he recognises he HAS to have a solid, decent, (taller) experienced CCC midfielder that he has to get
up and running URGENTLY, and if he's not 100% ready, so be it.

I thought he looked pretty decent after a slightly lost start and the midfield looked more solid
and we did keep a clean sheet after letting in a lot of goals


We had 59% possession. We kept them down to 3 on target shots and 1 off.

How many of those were in the 13 minutes after Leighterwood went off?

[The Rouge]

My mate was in Chile when those guys were trapped in the mine. Doesn't mean he had anything to do with it mind...

[brendywendy]

He was lucky to be on the pitch for as long as he was imo. He looked less agile than a double decker bus throughout! Also, not sure if anybody else picked up on him pointing up the pitch whenever any of our back four got the ball, telling them to play the ball long to our strikers. As a central midfielder you should never shy away from wanting the ball, and in my eyes shows that he either seriously lacks confidence on the ball or was too unfit to do any hard work himself. He'll have to seriously sort himself out before next saturday or i cant see him getting much more playing time than he was getting at QPR!

Agree. I sincerely hope that Brian can see the obvious shortcomings in his fitness and ability as clearly as we can.

[Snowball]

My mate was in Chile when those guys were trapped in the mine. Doesn't mean he had anything to do with it mind...

I hope YOU know what the hell you're talking about

[Wycombe Royal]

My mate was in Chile when those guys were trapped in the mine. Doesn't mean he had anything to do with it mind...

I hope YOU know what the hell you're talking about

I thought it was quite easy to understand. You said "How many of those were in the 13 minutes after Leighterwood went off?" in relation to Leeds attempts at goal. The Rouge is basically saying that it doesn't mean it had anything to do with Leigertwood...

And no I don't necessarily agree with him......

[Snowball]

My mate was in Chile when those guys were trapped in the mine. Doesn't mean he had anything to do with it mind...

I hope YOU know what the hell you're talking about

I thought it was quite easy to understand. You said "How many of those were in the 13 minutes after Leighterwood went off?" in relation to Leeds attempts at goal. The Rouge is basically saying that it doesn't mean it had anything to do with Leigertwood...

And no I don't necessarily agree with him......

Could you rephrase that?

[Wycombe Royal]

I hope YOU know what the hell you're talking about

I thought it was quite easy to understand. You said "How many of those were in the 13 minutes after Leighterwood went off?" in relation to Leeds attempts at goal. The Rouge is basically saying that it doesn't mean it had anything to do with Leigertwood...

And no I don't necessarily agree with him......

Could you rephrase that?

No.

[The Rouge]

Snowball. You call yourself a statistician yet you are happy to use low samples or extremely subjective conclusions to back up any arguments you have.

There are a multitude of reasons as to why Leeds may have had a couple more shots in the last 13 minutes:

- Tiredness
- Extra Fitness
- A Tactical change
- Good bits of individual skill
- Bits of individual bad play
- Leigertwood being subbed

If you were scientific in the slightest you would say 13 minutes is way too low a sample to even comment on it + you need to rule out the other reasons for a couple (low number again) of extra shots.

[ZacNaloen]

Rouge, what I believe you meant to say is

Post hoc ergo propter hoc



Gotta sound as aloof as possible.

[Negative_Jeff]

He was lucky to be on the pitch for as long as he was imo. He looked less agile than a double decker bus throughout! Also, not sure if anybody else picked up on him pointing up the pitch whenever any of our back four got the ball, telling them to play the ball long to our strikers. As a central midfielder you should never shy away from wanting the ball, and in my eyes shows that he either seriously lacks confidence on the ball or was too unfit to do any hard work himself. He'll have to seriously sort himself out before next saturday or i cant see him getting much more playing time than he was getting at QPR!

Come on, you have to go back almost a year to when we actually had midfield players wanting the ball off defenders. In their wisdom the club passed up the idea of playing any progressive football by removing Rodgers. OK needs must and McDermott deserves credit for turning things around last season, but the huge sticking plaster that covers over poor technique and tactical understanding amongst the players will continue to inhibit our progress. Personally I detest the style of football we currently play.

[brendywendy]

If you were scientific in the slightest you would say 13 minutes is way too low a sample to even comment on it + you need to rule out the other reasons for a couple (low number again) of extra shots.

sample size does not make stats irrelevant. it simply makes them less relevant.
rth estats still mean something, you just need to keep in mind the low sample size.

[winchester_royal]

Personally I thought he was pretty decent.

Not quite sure how some can go on with themselves about how rubbish he is, given that for one of the first times this season we had a pretty decent grip on the match in the middle of the park.

[Snowball]

Personally I thought he was pretty decent.

Not quite sure how some can go on with themselves about how rubbish he is, given that for one of the first times this season we had a pretty decent grip on the match in the middle of the park.

But this is Hob-Nob. They are lining up the next scape-goat

Now if we could just sign a 34-year old black Irishman we'd be laughing




PS I agree with you

[Snowball]

Could you rephrase that?

No.

OK, we'll leave it at "I haven't a clue what you oxf*rd mean" then

[Snowball]

Snowball. You call yourself a statistician yet you are happy to use low samples or extremely subjective conclusions to back up any arguments you have.

There are a multitude of reasons as to why Leeds may have had a couple more shots in the last 13 minutes:

- Tiredness// - Extra Fitness // - A Tactical change // - Good bits of individual skill // - Bits of individual bad play
- Leigertwood being subbed

If you were scientific in the slightest you would say 13 minutes is way too low a sample to even comment on it + you need to rule out the other reasons for a couple (low number again) of extra shots.

How VERY interesting! Where did I say (or even IMPLY) that we fell apart when LW came off? Where did I say we were better when he was on and worse when he came off? I merely asked a question.

In the whole game, against one of the best attacks in the league we gave away 3 on-target shots. I remember that at least 1 was after LW went off, so the MAXIMUM he allowed (with his colleagues) was 2 shots on target. It may have been less, hence my question.

How can a previously leaky defence, with (ALLEGEDLY) a DM who was "passed by" and a donkey, manage to almost totally snuff out a good attack?

[Snowball]

Come on, you have to go back almost a year to when we actually had midfield players wanting the ball off defenders. In their wisdom the club passed up the idea of playing any progressive football by removing Rodgers. OK needs must and McDermott deserves credit for turning things around last season, but the huge sticking plaster that covers over poor technique and tactical understanding amongst the players will continue to inhibit our progress. Personally I detest the style of football we currently play.

Yes, and it shows in the fact that we appear to be cutting out "chances" like QPR (the same number of "chances") but theors are good, clear chances and ours are rush jobs, from an angle etc. We almost never "open up" defences with good play

[Snowball]

If you were scientific in the slightest you would say 13 minutes is way too low a sample to even comment on it + you need to rule out the other reasons for a couple (low number again) of extra shots.

sample size does not make stats irrelevant. it simply makes them less relevant.
rth estats still mean something, you just need to keep in mind the low sample size.

77 v 13 has NOTHING TO DO WITH SAMPLE SIZE!


Sometimes you take of a defensive midfielder or a defender and the world caves in, you let in 2-3 goals in the last 13. Nobody says "small sample size". They say "Why the hell take XXXX off. We were doing great!"

Conversely, sometimes we bring ON a player to plug a gap, turn 0-1 into 2-1 or 3-1


We can SEE often when the changes is made and what affect it has.



You might as well say "Kebe may or may not have affected the game, but as he was only on for 30 minutes, the sample size is too small."

[The Rouge]

But 2 or so shots versus 1 is a low sample size. As is 1 game.

Just reserve judgement. Judge Reading over a season or a half season, Judge Leigertwood over 10+ games..

[Snowball]

But 2 or so shots versus 1 is a low sample size. As is 1 game.

Just reserve judgement. Judge Reading over a season or a half season, Judge Leigertwood over 10+ games..

I think you miss my point.

If there was 1 shot on target after he went off, then in 77 minutes he limited the opposition to 2 in 77 mins

if there were two shots O-T after he went off, then in 77 minutes he limited the opposition to a single shot on target

Considering we were letting in goals for fun a few games ago, he can't have been that bad