MrLogic

'They're all talking about how he might not fit the system, how he's in poor form, how his approach to the game might cost us in certain situations.' Sounds like a great player... 'It is indeed as Fish says, either he's flawless or he's awful - that's the implication of the argument that's being made. You didn't outright say it' My god...

That's what I thought. It doesn't appear so, @The Fish failed to provide a quote, you haven't provided one and I don't believe I said any such thing. Scouts use statistics to inform and reinforce their opinion/judgement, scouts will use statistics as evidence when presenting their opinion/judgement, clubs hire data analysts, clubs are even designing their own programmes to record and analyse statistics in order to identify talent. Again, do some research on the likes of Ian Graham, Dafydd Steele, Tim Waskett, Laurie Shaw and Matthew Benham. Have a quick Google of StatDNA, QlikView and Wyscout. You're not living in reality if you think clubs spend millions of pounds on a player because a scout watched them play and thought 'he's pretty good'... That's not how the world works, you need evidence, you need to be able to explain why, in an objective way, when asked. You talk about patterns of play... What does that mean? Patterns of play are coachable right? That's what the coaching staff drill in training for the players to then implement on a match day right? If you're talking about a specific style of play, for example a coach that relies on pressuring the opposition when out of possession there are stats to identify players to suit that style, if you want to employ a possession based style there are stats to identify players to suit that style, if you want to employ a counter based style there are stats to identify players to suit that style and so on... Can you give me an example of an objective strength or weakness that cannot be measured? I have no idea what point you were trying to make when you referred to a 'fire engine' and an 'apple'. You saying that the stats I provided are 'spurious' doesn't make it true, you saying that I'm not very bright doesn't make it true. Like I said, you need to be able to explain why.

Feel free to provide a quote that states what you're suggesting.

'How long does ASM keep his spot in the first team under a new gaffer? Last two games since the kindest cuddliest sole he's ever met has left he's been way off. I would start Miggy over ASM v Chelsea.' 'He has been shite, but I'll forgive him for all the hope he gave us during bruceball. ' 'If a manager comes in who likes to press from the front, which I believe both Farve and Fonseca do, then you might be surprised how often ASM finds himself on the bench. Almiron would be the first name on the sheet in the aforementioned scenario. ASM might find himself relegated to only playing against teams in the bottom half of the table, and as an impact sub.' 'But works more than ASM. As soon as the dummy is out with ASM he does absolutely fuck all.' 'It's a few weeks out of date but this shows just how little he presses.' 'I won't really mind that tbh, ASM is a massive talent, but the best teams usually rely on quick passing, not one man trying to beat the whole team by himself. He was perfect for Bruce, who doesn't really do team planning anyway, but to get to the next level he'll have to fit into a team system. He would never last long with Rafa for example, with those pressing stats. Or if he turned up to training when he felt like it.' 'I'd like to see a stat on how often we concede after he's lost the ball after one of his mazy runs. Obviously he quite often produces something that leads to a goal, but does he contribute more than he makes us vulnerable to counter attack. But look, he along with Wilson are our best players, so we can't be too picky until we start bringing players in.' 'Christ. so he barely presses and is only behind Zaha in losing the ball. That's the problem with players like ASM, It's very difficult to play in a structured way in and out of possession if you have a player who, again doesn't press, and loses the ball constantly. You basically have to build the team around them, and I don't think ASM has shown the consistency in order to make that worthwhile.' Un huh...

That's why I used the word 'arguably', against you, I could argue that the world is flat and win. You should go back and read the "debate" on Jonjo Shelvey.

No... At his best (19/20 season) he was rated the 15th best player that season... De Bruyne Pereira Traore Mahrez Mane Salah Sterling Rashford Maddison Kane van Dijk Martial Willian Antonio Saint-Maximin The bar has been set pretty low, but I have no idea how you managed to misinterpret a set of lists that poorly.

Some of the drivel on here (from the same people too)... Since he's been here, he's been at worst, the 25th best player in the league based on the WhoScored ratings provided and he did that at arguably the worst performing team in the league. 19/20: 20/21: 21/22:

'You’re wrong. You flat out rejected people saying a loan was an option' No I didn't, you've resorted to lying, below are quotes of mine clearly stating that a loan is a possibility: 'The only way a loan happens is if...' 'Not saying it can't or won't happen, the reports state he wants a loan move, but that is a lot of moving pieces and wasted money...' When people start lying to try and make a point, that's when a debate ends. It's impossible to debate with liars. This is over.

And your response as to why a club would loan Lingard for 6 months and why Manchester United would do that didn't make sense logically... Second paragraph is circular. The likelihood is that he'll have permanent options. Sure that club could walkaway after the six month loan if it doesn't work out, that is a positive. This whole discussion is speculative (competitions they may not be involved in much longer), you can't keep using that as counter every single time, he's in their squad, they give him a number, they registered him, they need him for squad depth. I'm sure they did offer him to West Ham for £25m-£30m, that would be logical considering he had such a good loan spell for them, he only had one year left on his contract, they could demand a high fee and it was the summer window so they could've replaced him with more options...

You're guessing by saying that there won't be permanent options available in January right? The question is what is more likely? Based on the reports and the information we have, he'll have permanent options available. The reason to pay a transfer fee, is to guarantee the transfer right? You make a note of being able to pay a small fee now, only to sign him for free in the summer, but when the summer comes you'll have to pay, as you mention, a larger wage and a larger signing bonus, that and you'd assume you would have significantly more competition from other clubs trying to sign him. Manchester United rejected permanent offers in the previous summer window for Lingard, they did that because they need the squad depth, Lingard in total has made 8 appearances for them this season, someone would need to fill that void however small you believe it to be. I'm sure Lingard would love to go out on loan, put himself in the shop window and then take the all the spoils in the summer, but that screws over every other club involved.

But there will be options to sell right? The only way a loan happens is if Lingard rejects any permanent offer that lands on the table and the clubs that want him are willing to pay a loan fee to get him for 6 months, even though Lingard himself may have rejected permanent approaches from those same clubs and on top of that Manchester United would have to agree to letting Lingard go on loan, despite him rejecting permanent moves, leaving themselves short and potentially having to go into the transfer market to get a replacement, all to accommodate Lingard... Not saying it can't or won't happen, the reports state he wants a loan move, but that is a lot of moving pieces and wasted money.

Again, why would Manchester United settle for a 'nominal' loan fee in January , when they can sell him for significantly more in January... Manchester United clearly want to keep him which is why they rejected offers in the summer and why they've tried to offer a new contract...

You called someone 'insane' and then presented those numbers...

I did read it, I asked why? Why would Manchester United let Lingard go out on loan (losing a valuable squad player) just to let him leave for free at the end of the season? Why wouldn't a club who wanted him just pay a "small" fee in January to secure his services for the next 3/4/5 years?

Gayle has 26 goals in 6063 minutes in the PL, one every 233 minutes, not 'one in seven' games (630 minutes) like you claimed.

Why would you loan a player who has 6 months left on his current contract?

If I don't not what I'm talking about, you'd be able to tell my why, but you can't, instead you just resorted to throwing "insults" around and everything that you did say that was football related was factually incorrect... But hey, I'm the one who doesn't know football right? I'm here if you change your mind.

I'm in a 'tizz'? Am I? I mean it would be understandable considering you resorted to lying to try and make a point, that you were wrong about... I remind you, that you wanted to compare Hayden to Shelvey. Not me, I just provided the statistics that, again, you chose. And now you're resorting to changing the subject of comparison to Ritchie and Murphy, two wide players, after the entirely of your previous argument was proved to be 'nonsense' as you put it. I'm not interested in debating whether or not the club has been run down with you, you're clearly uninformed and after being informed, you're not willing to own up to mistakes/bad takes and you're not willing to change your opinion when presented with new information. Have a nice day.

Why are you talking about Demba Ba and Emmanuel Riviere? This is about Shelvey and his peers in central midfield, we have that data (and plenty of it), use it... And for the second time, I never said time equals quality. Last note on that first paragraph, this argument is not about quality, it's about relative quality, meaning when Newcastle's midfielders are compared against one another, who comes out on top? This isn't a Shelvey is the best thing since sliced bread argument, this is a he's the best we've got/had for ~6 years argument. You can use goals and assists to argue whether or not he's out performed his peers let's see using the ones you mentioned: Shelvey has scored 16 goals and made 24 assists in 13,513 minutes, a contribution every 338 minutes S.Longstaff has scored 5 goals and made 4 assists in 5,689 minutes, a contribution every 632 minutes Hayden has scored 7 goals and made 10 assists in 11,955 minutes, a contribution every 703 minutes Merino has scored 1 goal and made 1 assist in 1,424 minutes, a contribution every 712 minutes Would you look at that... I'm for one am shocked! Again, my argument is about Shelvey vs his peers, Cabaye was not his peer. HIs position in the team is down to the management and the style/system that they use, if they want Shelvey (and the team) to play higher, that is on the management, not Shelvey. Shelvey and Hayden play in the same position, YOU'RE the one who brought up Hayden, YOU'RE the one who brought up disciplinary records and YOU'RE the one who brought up goals and assists records. I just did the actual work and provided the statistics, the statistics that YOU chose. I have not cherry picked anything, you chose everything in this debate, you were uninformed and were wrong. Don't resort to lying about me cherry picking data. Do your research.

Well he's made 140 appearances in the Premier League (35 of those coming from Benitez), he's played 6063 minutes of Premier League football and has scored 26 goals and made 7 assists, that's a goal contribution every 184 minutes. Which, I think, is an impressive record.

Shelvey made 104 appearances for Benitez… Gayle was signed by Benitez and again made 74 appearances for him… Benitez did spend more than Bruce and was in charge when the team was relegated... Those are facts...

I never said that Shelvey was good just because he’s played in the sides managed by McClaren, Benitez and Bruce, what I said was: ‘You can make criticisms of Shelvey but the fact of the matter is he is our best central midfielder and has been since his arrival in January 2016, he has made 176 appearances for the club, starting for three different coaches (potentially four now) and has outlasted and outperformed the likes of Diame, Colback, Saivet, Barlaser, Anita, Merino, Ki, M.Longstaff, S.Longstaff, Bentaleb, Willock, Hendrick and so on... He was given a contract because he was too valuable to the squad to let go of.’ You say we’ve had better midfielders and go on to list Merino without giving any reasoning/evidence as to why/how? Merino played 1424 minutes for Newcastle, that’s less than 16 games and you’re claiming that what I said (above) about Shelvey outlasting and outperforming his peers is ‘nonsense’? And Longstaff has been a better CM ‘at times’, how many times exactly? You then go on and make a complaint about how deep Shelvey plays… Surely that’s a criticism for the management, if the manager wants Shelvey to play higher, then instruct him to play higher, that is not a valid attack on Shelvey’s ability. As for the ‘reckless fouls’ and picking up ‘stupid cards’ comment, let’s compare Hayden (who listed above) and Shelvey: Hayden has received 35 yellow cards and 2 red cards in 167 appearances (11,955 minutes) Shelvey has received 31 yellow cards, 2 second yellow cards and 2 red cards in 176 appearances (13,513 minutes) The difference, which ever way you perceive who has a better disciplinary record, is negligible.

I have not distorted any statistics to support my points… I’ve just used statistics to support my points, if you disagree with my point, you’re free to provide your own statistics/reasoning/evidence that you feel counters my argument, but that’s on you to provide not me. That’s how debates work. Sure… Bruce wasn’t the manager of Newcastle for three years, he was there for ~2 years and 3 months, Benitez was the manager of Newcastle for ~3 years, 3 months and 19 days… You got me… That’s my whole argument, just destroyed! For someone who was really concerned about the accuracy of Bruce’s tenure (not as accurate with Benitez funnily enough), the rest of your argument is bare and lacks any detail, you state that Bruce spent the entirety of ~£127.17m given to him on, let’s say paraphrase and say “poor” players, really? Wilson and Saint-Maximin? I would argue that those players are head and shoulders above anyone that Benitez managed to bring to the club and as you point out, he was here ‘substantially longer’ apparently… You think Willock is poor? Lewis? Fraser? I believe they have just been poorly managed/utilised by Bruce. Why do you think they are poor? As for your attack on Joelinton I presume, again I’d (potentially) point to the quality of the coaching by Bruce, the point I do want to make is regarding Benitez advising the club ‘not to sign’ him, Benitez actually advised the club and refused to sign off on the deal because he thought the player was worth ‘£20m’ and not the ’£40m’ we ended up paying (per Mike Ashley), I feel people tend to forget that Benitez didn’t want Saint-Maximin either (per Luke Edwards), but you don’t want him either right? Because he’s not very good? Benitez did have a significantly lower net spend than Bruce, that’s to be expected when the club is relegated and ~£100m of TV revenue disappears, something Benitez was hired to prevent, but failed (something that fans are really touchy about). Nevertheless Benitez did spent ~£153.46m on players, that happened, he was allowed to spend that in ~6 transfer windows compared to the ~£127.17m in ~5 transfer windows that Bruce had.

Yes and then I read your comment, that had absolutely no mention of Eddie Howe and instead talked about how the squad had been run down and that players like Shelvey and Gayle who are 'shot', should not have been given new contracts. Again, that's what I disagreed with. I feel like I've said this before... Seriously, go back and read your comment, the one I responded to. This is becoming incredibly tedious.

They if you disagree with my argument you're more than free to challenge it with your own reasoning, statistics and facts and we'll see how it stacks up. If not, we'll assume my argument is/was justified and well informed. And again, you're more than free to think debating football matters is pointless, just the same way someone could think that what you did was pointless.