The best midfielder in the league

[bakes8]

In general the usual suspects come out loud when a loss comes in. Luongo made more tackles than anyone yesterday, more successful dribbles than anyone yesterday, played more passes than anyone yesterday, only Lynch and Sylla won more in the air and this is for both teams as well. So if you want to call him out, be my guest, it's your right to. But to go out of your way in the middle of a game to make a thread just to call me out (something that's been happening more these days which I find hilarious) is a bit embarrassing on your part and shows me that you look forward to a failure so you have something to moan about.

Mate, we lost at home to League 1 Burton.

[Pinkie]

Rubbish nas, if you know youre football and wasnt too bad at it you dont need stats to know when you see a good footballer or not, & what there strengths and weaknesses are!

[1973 ranger]

What was clear yesterday was he is not as good as some people including myself thought he was. Was very dissapointed in him yesterday as hoped he would boss that game yesterday.

[LondonCalling]

Luongo is a good footballer, very inconsistent however. To call him the best midfielder in the league is absolutely laughable.

[jmelanie]

If we sign Ravel hope that title goes to him.

[1973 ranger]

If Ravel is done then not sure how Luongo can fit in as Manning has showed his potential and Goss seems to be highly regarded and will assume he is a starter for us.

[nasser95]

Rubbish nas, if you know youre football and wasnt too bad at it you dont need stats to know when you see a good footballer or not, & what there strengths and weaknesses are!

I assume you'd need all the stats you can get then

I think that stats help so much, you won't see everything, you'll naturally react to something bad and remember it more than you remember something good. Your eyes are linked to your memory and if you are disappointed at an event, your memory will highlight that as a big thing while ignoring all else.

Statistics give context where your eyes can't. Don't be so naive to think that every good player knows the game inside out, especially when you certainly aren't all that in football, certainly not in a relative position to trust your eyes totally when judging football at a championship level and to totally discount stats just because they don't agree with what you see is laughable.

[jmelanie]

I assume you'd need all the stats you can get then

I think that stats help so much, you won't see everything, you'll naturally react to something bad and remember it more than you remember something good. Your eyes are linked to your memory and if you are disappointed at an event, your memory will highlight that as a big thing while ignoring all else.

Statistics give context where your eyes can't. Don't be so naive to think that every good player knows the game inside out, especially when you certainly aren't all that in football, certainly not in a relative position to trust your eyes totally when judging football at a championship level and to totally discount stats just because they don't agree with what you see is laughable.

I realize you find stats interesting, but they really have little to do with results. You frequently see games where the winning team had less possession, made fewer tackles, had fewer shots on goal but finish up winning the game.

[West Acton]

I realize you find stats interesting, but they really have little to do with results. You frequently see games where the winning team had less possession, made fewer tackles, had fewer shots on goal but finish up winning the game.

Your going regret saying that 20page essay currently being written in response

[nasser95]

I realize you find stats interesting, but they really have little to do with results. You frequently see games where the winning team had less possession, made fewer tackles, had fewer shots on goal but finish up winning the game.

Stats are about interpretation. All that is good, but the stats will also tell you that all it takes is one error to concede a goal. People seem to think that the more numbers, the better in general. For an individual, that may be the case, but again you can do everything and then make one error and that's it. Game over.

For a team, it takes one mistake to lose a match, no matter how well you play.

[Rangers77]

Your going regret saying that 20page essay currently being written in response

If Jane doesn't, everyone else will......

[brightonr]

Stats are about interpretation. All that is good, but the stats will also tell you that all it takes is one error to concede a goal. People seem to think that the more numbers, the better in general. For an individual, that may be the case, but again you can do everything and then make one error and that's it. Game over.

For a team, it takes one mistake to lose a match, no matter how well you play.

Maybe Nas. But with one bloke continuously making them, it doesn't help.

[James1979]

If Ravel joins and with Goss, luongo may end up on bench going forward.

[James1979]

In general the usual suspects come out loud when a loss comes in. Luongo made more tackles than anyone yesterday, more successful dribbles than anyone yesterday, played more passes than anyone yesterday, only Lynch and Sylla won more in the air and this is for both teams as well. So if you want to call him out, be my guest, it's your right to. But to go out of your way in the middle of a game to make a thread just to call me out (something that's been happening more these days which I find hilarious) is a bit embarrassing on your part and shows me that you look forward to a failure so you have something to moan about.

If those stats are true then based on his performance yesterday it shows how meaningless they can be. He was awful.

[nasser95]

If those stats are true then based on his performance yesterday it shows how meaningless they can be. He was awful.

See now that's how you choose to perceive him. I went to the match, watched every minute of it and didn't look at the stats till after. He had a poor first half but was much much better in the second and the stats backed that. I see that as something important, when you have the data on your side, it tends to validate the statement.