'Leicester City: A Defence in Numbers'

[Babylon]

I like Bamba. His face is friendly. X

Don't forget his nice song, it's catchy.

I'm sure there is a song to like ratio.

If a player has a catchy song, he's great. If not, he's shit.

[RumbleFox]

I think Morgan and Bamba would be a perfectly fine partnership next season with a proper pre season under their belt and a few more games together. As ol' Shrapnel points out, from the stats they have conceded the least goals per game (yes I know they have not played many but still, what more can they do than do well in the games they have played?), they can surely only improve as a partnership and, most important of all, they are fvcking hench.

I'd be happy to see them starting the first game of next season as our centre back pairing (although with Mills looking like he has no future here and St Ledger not happy as back up we may need to buy a couple of good back up centre backs) and to be honest, though there is so much doom and gloom on here, I genuinely don't think we need many more personnel. To be completely honest I reckon the team I am about to list could, with the right mentality and outlook, gain promotion next year.

Kasper

Konchesky

Bamba

Morgan

Pelteir

Danns

Drinkwater

Marshall

Dyer

Nugent

Beckford

Add Kingy, Gally, Schlupp, Vassell, Hopper and Waghorn into the mix and I really think it's not a bad team. Of course I would like to see a couple of additions (a new right back maybe and another pacey wide man) but it aint as bad as it seems I reckon. And before some of you say "but we are shit and that team did not get us promoted this year and Gally is a cvnt because he isn't as strong as other football men" I am not saying I want the same team next year and we clearly need investment and an injecion of some new players I just wanted to point out I do not think a complete overhaul of players (or staff) is needed.

In Nigel we trust.

X

[Captain...]

I think Morgan and Bamba would be a perfectly fine partnership next season with a proper pre season under their belt and a few more games together. As ol' Shrapnel points out, from the stats they have conceded the least goals per game (yes I know they have not played many but still, what more can they do than do well in the games they have played?), they can surely only improve as a partnership and, most important of all, they are fvcking hench.

I'd be happy to see them starting the first game of next season as our centre back pairing (although with Mills looking like he has no future here and St Ledger not happy as back up we may need to buy a couple of good back up centre backs) and to be honest, though there is so much doom and gloom on here, I genuinely don't think we need many more personnel. To be completely honest I reckon the team I am about to list could, with the right mentality and outlook, gain promotion next year.

Kasper

Konchesky

Bamba

Morgan

Pelteir

Danns

Drinkwater

Marshall

Dyer

Nugent

Beckford

Add Kingy, Gally, Schlupp, Vassell, Hopper and Waghorn into the mix and I really think it's not a bad team. Of course I would like to see a couple of additions (a new right back maybe and another pacey wide man) but it aint as bad as it seems I reckon. And before some of you say "but we are shit and that team did not get us promoted this year and Gally is a cvnt because he isn't as strong as other football men" I am not saying I want the same team next year and we clearly need investment and an injecion of some new players I just wanted to point out I do not think a complete overhaul of players (or staff) is needed.

In Nigel we trust.

X

Coherent, well thought out, reasoned points and not one mention of your penis, disappointing.

[Trav Le Bleu]

I do love Cap Shrap (as I refer to him) and his posts. So well observed and accurate, he can be funny too.

More power to your typing arm!

[RumbleFox]

Coherent, well thought out, reasoned points and not one mention of your penis, disappointing.

Sorry, I am trying to be better at life. I can't go on with the weight of my penis weighing me down (metaphorically you understand, clearly literally its mass could not even weigh a shrew down).

X

[SharpeFox]

Captain Shrapnel,

I am pleased that my “pile of tosh” has managed to ignite your imagination so vigorously. Unfortunately, it seems to have provoked a much more abhorrent string of responses than the vast majority of the people who have read it. I feel I ought to offer some form of retort as opposed to simply sitting here and tolerating this defamatory critique.

Firstly, I take issue with your claim that I have been deliberating “manipulating numbers” in order to “prove the point you want to make”. Nowhere in the article did I manipulate any figures; I laid them out very clearly for all to see. I simply made a reasoned judgement based on these statistics. You were always free to form your own consensus through an independent extrapolation of the data – something you are clearly not guilty of doing.

Contrary to your accusation, it was obvious – or so I thought – that I never approached the statistics with anything other than “a completely unbiased and agenda-free attitude”. Had this not been the case, I would not have offered the number of very valid reasons to perhaps prefer the Morgan/Bamba partnership. But, I did. As I said in the article, they are forming a rather harmonious duet. I am a huge fan of both players. My issue was that the partnership is still just that – forming. My point was that it is still too early in their partnership to rate them higher than Mills/Bamba at this stage. I will concede that I perhaps should have stated explicitly that if their impressive run continues, and their understanding develops, then, at some point, they will become the superior pairing. Having said that, such a small exclusion does not justify your derogatory accusations.

You also point out that I did not “take into account the disciplinary record”. Aside from acknowledging Mills’ two red cards in the small print of Figure 1, you are correct. However to say that “if he gets two red cards a season and misses seven games then he cannot be relied upon” is a rather too simplistic assumption. Firstly, it is a big if to suggest that his disciplinary record will continue at that rate. But more poignantly than that to say he “cannot be relied upon” is just not the case. Steve Walsh, arguably Leicester’s most dependable captain, centre back and club legend also had a shocking disciplinary record – being the joint record holder for the most number of red cards in a league career. You would never say he was unreliable.

But your main point – you made it clear enough times in your responses – is the charge that my “attack on Pearson for not playing Mills...serves no other purpose than to slag off Nigel Pearson.” Wrong again, I’m afraid. As I made quite apparent in the article, it was simply his man-management skills (not his managerial capabilities as a whole) that I wished to take issue with – that, and the need for stability (I shall come to that in due course). Despite your retort, I still fundamentally maintain that his man-management skills are shocking. I realise that some posters on here (you included) think different, but I have yet to see the side consistently gel into anything more than a group of talented individuals – not, as is the job of a manager, as a team.

You also condemn my apparent conjecture over the alleged fallings out/pushings out that Pearson has had with the players listed (Mills, St Ledger, Campbell, Gradel – who I “harped on” about for all of one line – and Beckford). When a striker refuses to go up the pitch in the 92nd minute even at the request of his manager, then something is seriously wrong. You also make the incident with Sean St Ledger sound so warm and cosy. Like he and Pearson both agreed over a friendly drink that a transfer listing would be the best idea for Sean. I urge you to take off the rose-tinted spectacles. You say that Sean St Ledger “wanted first team football and Nigel Pearson couldn’t guarantee it”. You are forgetting that St Ledger had started seven out of the eleven games before the Ipswich game in which he was dropped, after which the alleged fall out and immanent transfer listing happened. Whatever occurred with him, Beckford and Mills, Pearson’s handling of the situations has been appalling.

Even so, despite this issue taking up the majority of your complaints, the fall out issue only compromises a mere 167 words of an article exceeding 1500.

I also find your condemnation somewhat hypocritical. You criticise me for an “attack” on Pearson when I “don’t know what happened with Mills, why he has been dropped and the reasons behind it”. Yet, in the very next paragraph you claim that Pearson was willing to keep him on the bench and in the squad “until he decided not to turn up to training sessions and reserve matches”. It is true that he did not attend training before the Leeds game, however you have no basis on which to found the assumption that it was he that whimsically decided bunk to off training. It may well have been other factors which contributed to this. That claim is, by your own standards, equally as unjustified as mine.

Despite your constant dispute over what I was apparently arguing/intending/manipulating throughout the article, it seems as though my fundamental point is one that you agree with – despite the fact you chose to ignore this in your vehement critique of it. You finish your responses with the following:

“...in all honesty we have four decent centre backs at the club, they have their good qualities and their bad, what we haven’t done with any of them is form a decent partnership that we can build on for next season and that is why we are where we are.”

I don’t know if you noticed but this is exactly what I explained – at length – throughout the second half of my tosh. We had formed a (more than) decent partnership at the start of the season, but this was broken up (for whatever reason) and constantly chopped and changed by the manager throughout the year. Nigel Pearson never gave any pairing the chance to form this understanding. So, you are correct, that is why we are where we are.

My aim was never simply to “slag off” Pearson, but to offer an opinion – using unbiased research (see the Reading comparison) - on what he needs to improve on for next season.

I do hope this has managed to clear up any misunderstandings that arose during your reading of (and responding to) my article. If you have any further queries, issues or insults then please let me know – I would be more than happy to answer them.

[cc_star]

How do you come to the conclusion that Mills and Bamba are the best partnership, from your stats:

Bamba and Morgan have conceded less goals and had less time to form a partnership (as you say centrebacks need time to form a partnership so arguably their stats will improve), you compare their first 5 against Mills and Bamba who conceded 7 goals, surely as a true comaprison you would have to take their first 5 games together, you would also have to take into account that Mills and Bamba had pre-season together, whereas Morgan didn't.

You also don't take into account the disciplinary record, (Mills 2 reds) the rest of the back four in each game and the midfield in front of them (it is a team game) if you are going to put in caveats about opposition then you need to take all factors into account and not just those that prove the point you are trying to make....

I would almost forgive this, but you then decided to turn a balanced look at statistics into an attack on NP first over Mills when you don't know what happened with Mills and why he has been dropped and the reasons behind it. You also harp on about Gradel, not in the team and went out on loan for first team football, there was no falling out with Gradel, but he wanted first team football at a lower level, SSL, wanted first team football, NP couldn't guarantee it, he was placed on the transfer list to give him the opportunity of that should another club be interested, they weren't SSL was always in NP's plans and his chance came, he took it, Beckford and NP did not have a falling out, how you can say that is just nonsense, they may have had an argument but anything more than that was press speculation, if you didn't notice he started the next game. Finally Campbell wasn't performing for us, he was allowed to go on loan, he didn't want to come back, it had very little to do with NP.

You could accuse NP of getting rid of Wayne Brown and we all know why that was, but other managers have obviously deemed it ok, and yes Mills, but even then he was still willing to put him on the bench and keep him as part of the squad until he decided not to turn up to training sessions and reserve matches.

The only person here with a grudge us you, and unfortunately that has turned an analysis of defensive statistics into a pile of tosh.

Spot on,

Ridiculous stuff, stats need context. They indicate contribution, just like Gally being 2nd top goalscorer, best goals per start & best goals per shot in the league this year.

Mills suspensions cost just as much if not more than letting in comparably few goals... But Morgan/Bamba is better anyway & they've played together less & didn't have the whole summer to work on their partnership.

Gradel stuff is bullshit, people forget he was a bit part player. Certainly did nothing to suggest he should be 1st name on the team sheet like Gradel himself assumed, in fact he remained a bit part player after he left for a while. People really need to get over that or if they are going to bring it up talk about the context.

And as for what went off with Beckford (absolutely nothing), SSL (you don't know) Mills (you don't know) saying NP's handling is appalling is totally ridiculous too.

[Guesty]

I didn't read all of this because it went on for a bit. But the stats were very interesting. I wouldn't have expected that. But like other people have said, stats can be a little misrepresentative. I don't know if you had any bias or not but parts did seem a little anti-Pearson.

Thing is, what the stats don't show is the formation, the strength of the team we were playing, who was playing in midfield covering the defence, the moral of the team at the time, home or away etc. There are a lot of factors which could have affected a sample so small.

Still, well done in putting it all together, the stats were very interesting, but it could use a bit more brevity so people like me actually pay attention to all your points. (Not that your bothered)

[Captain...]

Captain Shrapnel,

I am pleased that my “pile of tosh” has managed to ignite your imagination so vigorously. Unfortunately, it seems to have provoked a much more abhorrent string of responses than the vast majority of the people who have read it. I feel I ought to offer some form of retort as opposed to simply sitting here and tolerating this defamatory critique.

Firstly, I take issue with your claim that I have been deliberating “manipulating numbers” in order to “prove the point you want to make”. Nowhere in the article did I manipulate any figures; I laid them out very clearly for all to see. I simply made a reasoned judgement based on these statistics. You were always free to form your own consensus through an independent extrapolation of the data – something you are clearly not guilty of doing.

Contrary to your accusation, it was obvious – or so I thought – that I never approached the statistics with anything other than “a completely unbiased and agenda-free attitude”. Had this not been the case, I would not have offered the number of very valid reasons to perhaps prefer the Morgan/Bamba partnership. But, I did. As I said in the article, they are forming a rather harmonious duet. I am a huge fan of both players. My issue was that the partnership is still just that – forming. My point was that it is still too early in their partnership to rate them higher than Mills/Bamba at this stage. I will concede that I perhaps should have stated explicitly that if their impressive run continues, and their understanding develops, then, at some point, they will become the superior pairing. Having said that, such a small exclusion does not justify your derogatory accusations.

You also point out that I did not “take into account the disciplinary record”. Aside from acknowledging Mills’ two red cards in the small print of Figure 1, you are correct. However to say that “if he gets two red cards a season and misses seven games then he cannot be relied upon” is a rather too simplistic assumption. Firstly, it is a big if to suggest that his disciplinary record will continue at that rate. But more poignantly than that to say he “cannot be relied upon” is just not the case. Steve Walsh, arguably Leicester’s most dependable captain, centre back and club legend also had a shocking disciplinary record – being the joint record holder for the most number of red cards in a league career. You would never say he was unreliable.

But your main point – you made it clear enough times in your responses – is the charge that my “attack on Pearson for not playing Mills...serves no other purpose than to slag off Nigel Pearson.” Wrong again, I’m afraid. As I made quite apparent in the article, it was simply his man-management skills (not his managerial capabilities as a whole) that I wished to take issue with – that, and the need for stability (I shall come to that in due course). Despite your retort, I still fundamentally maintain that his man-management skills are shocking. I realise that some posters on here (you included) think different, but I have yet to see the side consistently gel into anything more than a group of talented individuals – not, as is the job of a manager, as a team.

You also condemn my apparent conjecture over the alleged fallings out/pushings out that Pearson has had with the players listed (Mills, St Ledger, Campbell, Gradel – who I “harped on” about for all of one line – and Beckford). When a striker refuses to go up the pitch in the 92nd minute even at the request of his manager, then something is seriously wrong. You also make the incident with Sean St Ledger sound so warm and cosy. Like he and Pearson both agreed over a friendly drink that a transfer listing would be the best idea for Sean. I urge you to take off the rose-tinted spectacles. You say that Sean St Ledger “wanted first team football and Nigel Pearson couldn’t guarantee it”. You are forgetting that St Ledger had started seven out of the eleven games before the Ipswich game in which he was dropped, after which the alleged fall out and immanent transfer listing happened. Whatever occurred with him, Beckford and Mills, Pearson’s handling of the situations has been appalling.

Even so, despite this issue taking up the majority of your complaints, the fall out issue only compromises a mere 167 words of an article exceeding 1500.

I also find your condemnation somewhat hypocritical. You criticise me for an “attack” on Pearson when I “don’t know what happened with Mills, why he has been dropped and the reasons behind it”. Yet, in the very next paragraph you claim that Pearson was willing to keep him on the bench and in the squad “until he decided not to turn up to training sessions and reserve matches”. It is true that he did not attend training before the Leeds game, however you have no basis on which to found the assumption that it was he that whimsically decided bunk to off training. It may well have been other factors which contributed to this. That claim is, by your own standards, equally as unjustified as mine.

Despite your constant dispute over what I was apparently arguing/intending/manipulating throughout the article, it seems as though my fundamental point is one that you agree with – despite the fact you chose to ignore this in your vehement critique of it. You finish your responses with the following:

“...in all honesty we have four decent centre backs at the club, they have their good qualities and their bad, what we haven’t done with any of them is form a decent partnership that we can build on for next season and that is why we are where we are.”

I don’t know if you noticed but this is exactly what I explained – at length – throughout the second half of my tosh. We had formed a (more than) decent partnership at the start of the season, but this was broken up (for whatever reason) and constantly chopped and changed by the manager throughout the year. Nigel Pearson never gave any pairing the chance to form this understanding. So, you are correct, that is why we are where we are.

My aim was never simply to “slag off” Pearson, but to offer an opinion – using unbiased research (see the Reading comparison) - on what he needs to improve on for next season.

I do hope this has managed to clear up any misunderstandings that arose during your reading of (and responding to) my article. If you have any further queries, issues or insults then please let me know – I would be more than happy to answer them.

To be honest I was disappointed that what started off as a quite promising look at statistics, then brought in conjecture and baseless rhetoric to turn an assessment in out defensive failings into an attack on NP, which seems to be a popular past time at the moment.

But first I will take back that you were manipulating numbers to prove your point, I will change it to you were introducing caveats to lend further weight to your conclusions. Such as Bamba and Morgan only had 5 games together and against weaker opposition.

You can make conclusions based on statistics, which you did and I took counter conclusions from the same stats and brought in some other caveats, such as Mills' red cards, but that is interpretation of statistics, even cold hard numbers can be manipulated, which they always are, see another thread on Gally's stats and how they can be manipulated to show that he is great or shite.

I would agree that we have been unsettled at the back, and NP has to take some responsibility for that as he picks the team, but so do the players for not taking their chances, and the team as a whole for not being consistent in front of the back four and giving them the protection they need.

What I took umbrage with was suddenly accusing NP of being a bad man manager (which conveniently fitted your conclusion that Mills was the best defender) despite the fact that the he has got more out of players like Beckford, SSL, Danns and Wellens then Sven did.

Bringing up Gradel was pointless, it happened 3 years ago when a fringe player left for a lower league club in pursuit of first team football, I was gutted when he left, but it wasn;t because of NP's man manangement, it was because he wasn't playing first team football. No different to Danny N'Guessen, except Gradel was a youth product and very popular with the fans DNG wasn't but I don't see you accusing Sven of holding a grudge against DNG.

You bring up SSL and Beckford, both of whom have been a part of the first team after these so called spats, how is that NP being stubborn and holding a grudge?

Campbell was a different matter, we sent him out on loan in league one because he was on high wages and wasn't in NP's plans, he didn't want to come back, so he was sent out on loan again, until he was sold, by Sousa. Campbell like Gradel benefitted from leaving Leicester and fair play to them, and NP for letting them go and further their careers because they were not in his plans, based on peformance and not attitude.

Mills is another case, but despite NP's "grudge" he was still part of the first team squads until recently which coincided with him not turning up for training and a reserve match.

It is hard to judge NP on his treatment of Mills, because we don't know what happened, but I am also not going to mis-remember what happened with Gradel, Campbell, SSL and Beckford, just to prove a point.

Criticise NP all you want for mistakes he has made, and he has made some, but don't start twisting things into something they are not.

PS Welcome to Foxestalk, try not to let it drag you down.

[shade]

he's using stats in the same way politicians do, cynically!

[Guest parky0607]

I honestly believe we have no problem with our central defence. Personally I prefer the Morgan and Bamba partnership, with SSL as the 3rd man. Getting back to my main point, our midfield have cost us this season, defensively and going forward. IMO the 2 midfield players we only really need to keep in the starting 11 is Danns, for his ball winning ability, movement and passing and Marshall - dont need to explain on that one. I would keep Gallagher as the back up midfield man on the bench.

We need to sort out our discipline as well. This season has been a disgrace. We have had shit refs but we also need to take some responsibility ourselves. Danns latest red card was a prime example of this.

[SharpeFox]

Shrapnel,

It is a shame that your main problem with the article focuses on a mere 167 words of a piece totalling over 1500, when my main conclusion, the need for stability in the defence - and at the club - is something you agree with.

[fleckneymike]

I think it raises an important question over Pearson's management style.

The stats do show that we did concede less goals with a pairing of Bamba and Mills. The decision to break that partnership after Watford away was made by Nigel Pearson and resulted in us conceding more goals (remember the run of away games where we conceded 3 goals per game) and Mills has not been seen of again. Only recently has a pairing of Bamba and Morgan appeared equally solid so I don't think it unreasonable to question why we persevered with less competent pairings for so long.

[Captain...]

Shrapnel,

It is a shame that your main problem with the article focuses on a mere 167 words of a piece totalling over 1500, when my main conclusion, the need for stability in the defence - and at the club - is something you agree with.

It's a shame you ruined a very good article with those 167 words.

[Captain...]

I think it raises an important question over Pearson's management style.

The stats do show that we did concede less goals with a pairing of Bamba and Mills. The decision to break that partnership after Watford away was made by Nigel Pearson and resulted in us conceding more goals (remember the run of away games where we conceded 3 goals per game) and Mills has not been seen of again. Only recently has a pairing of Bamba and Morgan appeared equally solid so I don't think it unreasonable to question why we persevered with less competent pairings for so long.

Mills was largely at fault against Watford, and when you concede 3 goals to a shite team, you need to look at making changes, NP had stuck with Mills and had tried Tunchev, Bamba and SSL, with him, but we still looked frail at the back.He tried Morgan and SSL against Norwich and we won, as we did in the next few games with 2 wins and 2 clean sheets. Dropping Mills after Watford cannot be criticised by the games immediately afterwards. Then Konchesky got sent off and the next 2 games without him we concede 6 goals.

NP was looking at bringing Mills back, (he was on the bench at Brum) despite the argument, but Mills went on to further let him down and made his position at the club unworkable.

If Mills had taken being dropped like a man, used it as motivation to buck up his ideas and fight for his place then he would almost certainly have got back into the team and had a chance to prove his worth, especially after a few less than convincing performances from Morgan and SSL.

He didn't he spat his dummy out and deserves to be cast out, lets be honest we were hardly world beaters with him in the team, I would be interested to know Mills' stats vs the others under NP, the stats given by the OP, were of the whole season, but what we need to find is the bes defender under NP's style and formation.

[seenitall]

Hi SharpeFox

Great article confirming what most without blinkers already knew. Unfortunately for you, though, you have posted your link on the Pro Pearson board, where he does very little wrong and just needs to be given more time (unspecified amount ranging from 12 games next season through to the whole season through to a couple of even beyond that!!)

Here are some 'rules' to help you through, should you ever be brave/daft enough to post here again;

Stats are OK to support the improvement in the team under NP's stewardship (difficult now as there are none really) but are deemed very dodgy if they don't praise him. (he has improved points per game etc etc)

Any mention of Sven or any signing he made that is universally disliked (Sven was BAD you understand) is shouted down with howling derision, except where they have been elevated to 'great' status (Kasper/Nugent/Konch,until last week) - any criticism of these players is also WRONG

Suggesting that the owners of the club might be naive = WRONG

No mention of last seasons turnaround from relegation fodder into play off hopefuls is allowed - it suggests Sven tendencies =WRONG

You have to accept that we gave our last manager A YEAR and that the 13 games after which he was fired this season were part of THAT YEAR.

Signing players for more than £300,000 is WRONG (unless Nige pays about 10 times that for WAGGY, who is GREAT)

Hope these pointers help you - please note that you broke several golden Foxestalk rules when you said that Mills (Sven signing, waste of money, disloyal player) and Bamba(Sven signing, too erratic, takes risks) were better in defence than Morgan (Nige signing, therefore quite possibly the buy of the century) and - and this is the biggy, unforgivable one) Nige has poor management skills - how could you, he just needs more time................

[seenitall]

Mills was largely at fault against Watford, and when you concede 3 goals to a shite team, you need to look at making changes, NP had stuck with Mills and had tried Tunchev, Bamba and SSL, with him, but we still looked frail at the back.He tried Morgan and SSL against Norwich and we won, as we did in the next few games with 2 wins and 2 clean sheets. Dropping Mills after Watford cannot be criticised by the games immediately afterwards. Then Konchesky got sent off and the next 2 games without him we concede 6 goals.

NP was looking at bringing Mills back, (he was on the bench at Brum) despite the argument, but Mills went on to further let him down and made his position at the club unworkable.

If Mills had taken being dropped like a man, used it as motivation to buck up his ideas and fight for his place then he would almost certainly have got back into the team and had a chance to prove his worth, especially after a few less than convincing performances from Morgan and SSL.

He didn't he spat his dummy out and deserves to be cast out, lets be honest we were hardly world beaters with him in the team, I would be interested to know Mills' stats vs the others under NP, the stats given by the OP, were of the whole season, but what we need to find is the bes defender under NP's style and formation.

Good job there is no hate filled bile there eh?

[Webbo]

Good job there is no hate filled bile there eh?

Don't you ever get fed up of typing the same shit over and over again?

You don't like Pearson, you want him sacked. Okay, we get it. Lighten up a bit ffs.

[Captain...]

Good job there is no hate filled bile there eh?

No there isn't, Mills is a capable defender at this level, and I would support him should he ever get back into the team, but his actions have made that very unlikely, I have always tried to be balanced in my assessment of Mills on the pitch as I am with every other player, he is good solid defender decent in the air and comitted in the tackle, his distribution is poor but then that is a not his job and not just his fault, I consistently cited the midfield as part of the reason why he was forced to try and play long balls as they were not creating anything or providing many options, the problem was against Watford he failed to do the things that he should be doing, he was dominated physically and aerially by Chris Iwelumo (or however you spell his name) and that cost us the game. On the back of that and other poor performances he was rightly dropped. If he can't accept justified criticism and thinks he is undroppable then he is not going to improve and doesn't deserve to be in the team.

[seenitall]

No there isn't, Mills is a capable defender at this level, and I would support him should he ever get back into the team, but his actions have made that very unlikely, I have always tried to be balanced in my assessment of Mills on the pitch as I am with every other player, he is good solid defender decent in the air and comitted in the tackle, his distribution is poor but then that is a not his job and not just his fault, I consistently cited the midfield as part of the reason why he was forced to try and play long balls as they were not creating anything or providing many options, the problem was against Watford he failed to do the things that he should be doing, he was dominated physically and aerially by Chris Iwelumo (or however you spell his name) and that cost us the game. On the back of that and other poor performances he was rightly dropped. If he can't accept justified criticism and thinks he is undroppable then he is not going to improve and doesn't deserve to be in the team.

Captain Nigenel

[fleckneymike]

Mills was largely at fault against Watford, and when you concede 3 goals to a shite team, you need to look at making changes, NP had stuck with Mills and had tried Tunchev, Bamba and SSL, with him, but we still looked frail at the back.He tried Morgan and SSL against Norwich and we won, as we did in the next few games with 2 wins and 2 clean sheets. Dropping Mills after Watford cannot be criticised by the games immediately afterwards. Then Konchesky got sent off and the next 2 games without him we concede 6 goals.

NP was looking at bringing Mills back, (he was on the bench at Brum) despite the argument, but Mills went on to further let him down and made his position at the club unworkable.

If Mills had taken being dropped like a man, used it as motivation to buck up his ideas and fight for his place then he would almost certainly have got back into the team and had a chance to prove his worth, especially after a few less than convincing performances from Morgan and SSL.

He didn't he spat his dummy out and deserves to be cast out, lets be honest we were hardly world beaters with him in the team, I would be interested to know Mills' stats vs the others under NP, the stats given by the OP, were of the whole season, but what we need to find is the bes defender under NP's style and formation.

Following the Watford game our goals against in away games read

1, 0, 3, 3, 3, 5, 3, 1

[Leicester_Loyal]

Signing players for more than £300,000 is WRONG (unless Nige pays about 10 times that for WAGGY, who is GREAT)

Sousa bought Waghorn.

[seenitall]

Sousa bought Waghorn.

He was an idiot as well........

[coatsworthstache]

Really good article, I enjoyed it. Intresting that the partneship that can't be included in the analysis is Morgan/Mills which we've never seen, and could work well.

I think if you took the analysis further you would see that parameters like goals per game for the different partnerships weren't significantly different to each other probably confirming what I think is true, there is not really a huge amount of difference in the ability of the four main centre-halves at the club.

[Guest]

Don't you ever get fed up of typing the same shit over and over again?

You don't like Pearson, you want him sacked. Okay, we get it. Lighten up a bit ffs.

Everybody else is fed up with reading over and over again that's for sure.

If its not seenitall it's DT banging on and on with the same drivel.