mikejh45

I agree that Liddell puts over quality crosses and given the space he will drop it into a position where the forward will benefit, but he needs the other players around him to work the defenders to make that space. Therefore, if the midfield unit is working well, he is an asset and the team benefits. If the midfield is not playing well, then there is not a good enough end product. You can't laud Liddell's stats without acknowledging the other players. My point about the defence is not Stam on his own but in two separate defensive partnerships we have won more and conceded less than when Gregan plays. This is not about whether Gregan is/is not our best defender, but what is our best defence.

KTF Stitch - for his unswerving loyalty to certain players. (No offence Stitch - I'm smiling whilst typing this)

You seem to deliberately miss my point!!! I will repeat my question. Could he put the crosses in if he didn't get the space created by the other midfield players? Yes or no? Good debate this, I'm enjoying this one!!! And BOLLOCKS to your argument about Gregan!!!

That's the crux of the argument. He isn't our best defender. PROS - Wins headers in his immediate zone. - Times tackles very well. CONS - Current back four not talking and unsettled and disorganised. - Too slow and susceptible to being turned. If the argument about Liddell stood up, why aren't we getting the assists now? It's because he is not getting the space. It's a team game and you are not giving credit to the other midfield players. You are simply projecting a statistic on it's own. As far as defensive stats are concerned, a back four is better off without Gregan in his present form.

Well that's a considered response. Answer this, when I previously put forward stats about back four partnerships from last season, the best defensive goals conceded was Eardley/Trotman/Stam/Lomax followed by Eardley/Hazell/Stam/Lomax. Why was that? Was Stam just lucky? Or maybe that he might just be a better defender than you give him credit for!!! I have noticed a lot of blinkered views in here. When a player falls into a negative light on here, nothing will change that opinion. I take the view that all players deserve a continued runout until their form dictates otherwise. Last season, Stam was unlucky to be dropped. This season, both Liddell and Gregan started out far better than my expectations (and before anybody comments I have stated so on here) but both, in my opinion, have not warranted their automatic slot in the line-up in recent weeks.

If, as we have seen over the past few games, Liddell crosses the ball into the nearpost and both forwards are at the back post. Is the cross still a good one and the forwards are at fault because they aren't where Liddell put the ball or is it a bad cross because he's not looking up to see the forwards' movement? When the midfield are offensively playing well, Liddell has the time to cross a meaningful opportunity. Therefore the argument in comparison to the defence does not stand up to scrutiny. Liddell could not cross the ball if the other players did not make the space for him to do so. Therfore, it is not Liddell on his own but the midfield as a unit.

Following your argument, then Stam's primary role was to stop the opposition scoring, therefore the stats state that he was a contributory factor in the improvement of goals conceded over Gregan.

I'm a real ale monster, I'll take my chances. Besides I'm an estimator with a calculator. Do you feel lucky, punk???

Meaning what, pray tell?

Or that we were better without both of them! Stats can indeed be interpreted. That's why we drag them out to suit our arguments.

I remember not too long ago stats being used to tell us how effective Liddell is with goal assists. Now, we have the stats to show that the defence was more successful without Gregan. So are the stats to be dismissed as a whole or selectively used to suit one's arguments?

Can we just alter how many go up automatically depending on where Leeds finish?

Now I've had my little rant!!! Can I have: 1) Fuel as cheap as the Yanks. 2) A pension as good as the French. 3) The same amount of holidays as Johnny Foreigner. 4) A lunchtime like the Spanish. Whoever does that will get my vote.

Me, for one. We had a healthy economy when Bliar took over with Brown holding the puse strings and look now: - Government coffers empty. - Armed forces throwing rocks because the MoD spend on bureaucrats instead of the frontline. - Record investment in the NHS and still we are short of doctors and nurses. - Unemployment on the up because this shower hid the true number in incapacity or employed them in pointless council jobs. - No police when you want them. - Private pensions worth bugger all because Gordon started an annual TAX grab which, I might add, doesn't affect an M.P.'s pension. - One of the highest fuel costs in the world. Need I go on?

Good point, well made, Daz. I'm with you on this one. Be prepared for your stats to be ignored though.

Clarkson for PM, I say. Talking of the Beeb wasting shed loads of money, I believe they sent about 175 people to the good old USA to to cover election day.

I agree that Liddell puts across quality crosses as he did earlier this season, but he needs to be given the space to do that. He's not the player to do a quick trick to make that space. So in recent games he has been marked a lot closer and his ability to put in a good cross has been negated. Time to look at someone who can make the defenders work harder.

I went for Whittaker. Thought he did a lot of good work around the penalty box apart from shooting.

Excellent! Well done, you bastard!!!

Apologies for the talented comment, Stitch. I agree with the midfield bit, but my point at the moment is that certain players who are expected to lead by example are not. The engine room is not firing at the moment. The space that Liddell had earlier in the season is now not there because we are not getting the ball to him quickly enough. His crosses were poor on Saturday as was Eardley's. I think now is the time to give Maher a runout. But is dropping Allott going to give us a solid midfield platform and the opportunity for our defence to become a unit again? Or is dropping Whittaker going to lose us some attacking impetus?

Agree to a point, but is and should he be, on current form, an automatic? Dropping him should (not saying will) give him the arse-kick to get him back to being hungry.

I do not have a dislike of any player in the squad, but if after a number of games a particular player (in this instance Gregan) is not performing then I am entitled to question his right to an automatic slot. Your point regarding Gregan being a comfort to the other players would stand up to scrutiny if the 4 in the defence didn't play and inter-react like strangers. This is Gregan's primary role as captain and lead defender, he should be organising the others. If, as stated by other people on different posts, Jones is not playing as a left back then it is Gregan's job to make sure he does. Quite simply, Gregan is NOT performing and NOT leading. I am a committed Oldham fan and a Gregan fan when he is on form. He needs to be taken out of the starting 11 when a replacement is available so he can get out of his personal, automatic place comfort zone and get back to the standard we know he is capable of.

No different to Liddell, Taylor and Whittaker then!!! So why single out Maher when he's hardly had any playing time since he arrived?

But you still don't comment on the fact we shipped fewer goals last season when Stam was present. Experienced - yes. Respected - no (Hence, the defensive communication problem we are having now). Talented - I take it that's your little joke for the day. He's a stopper/resident on-field thug who shouts a lot and who is going through a bad patch.

I, for one, would prefer Stam (seeing as his name has slipped your memory) and whose stats last season were better than Gregan's both last season and this. And in both partnerships Eardley/Trotman/Stam/Lomax and Eardley/Hazell/Stam/Lomax, we didn't have a this 'leader' so that rather makes a mockery of the leadership/presence argument.