Kingfisher

What the hell was he thinking, and after what's happened recently, my mind boggles. His decision making has always been piss poor, on top of that he isn't a particularly good marker, constantly gets out jumped in the air, gets too tight when he shouldn't, gets outmuscled often. I thought Ridgewell was shit, he looks like McGrath in comparison.

So another mistake them eh? He is a liability.

...............................Guzan............................. Lowton...........Vlaar...........Baker..........Lichaj ................Westwood.........Delph................... ...............................Holman........................... .....Weimann..................................Gabby..... ...............................Benteke..........................

I quickly calculated his passing ratio out to be relatively good by skimming though his individual match scores, whoscored has it slightly lower, but it's not even an issue. I didn't base my whole argument on it, but you rather have. It's you who made it an issue and have gone on and on about it because you thought it was an argument winner. But as I've demonstrated, it isn't, it's neither here nor there. He is a very attacking passer, one likely to create, and he statistically has, that is more important than a 90% sideways pass accuracy, in an attacking capacity. So..using his passing % against him is misguided, as I've explained at considerable length. I don't know why you still do it. Obviously it is 'YOUR OPINION' he has to have that particular stat, maybe you can explain how you arrived at that opinion ...or maybe you can't.

You hung you're argument on his passing stat before, now you're falling back on opinion. I'd say 'I THINK he's a creative player with an eye for a pass', you'd say rubbish and point to the passing stat. I've pointed out why it is quite convincingly a flawed argument, and now you're just saying 'well I think he's not good enough, end of'. I'm reading your posts but you're displaying double standards.

Well I've given you reasonable opportunity to come back with a reasoned, evidenced argument, we shall have to agree to disagree. But it's easy to sit there and say he's rubbish and pick holes in other peoples arguments, worse, questioning their integrity. It seems 'I think he's rubbish' is good enough for you. If pressed you'll give an unqualified stat or an anecdote but you clearly don't set yourself the same standards you expect of other posters.

Not made up stats at all, I said I collated his passing stats to be roughly equal to Gabby's, explained I could be wrong, but also said pass success isn't the be all and end all that you make it out to be. Here is why (again); Totti is an attack orientated player, who has a lot of assists, but a low pass success rate, he is a creative forward. De Bruyne is an attack orientated player with lots of assists who has a low pass success rate, he is an attacking midfielder. Non of the top creative players in terms of assists have particularly high pass success rates most of whom are attacking midfielders. The most creative players at most clubs have lower pass success rates than their team mates. Holman is an attacking midfielder who has the second most assists in the squad, if he plays and creates goals I'd prefer that than a 90% safe pass rate from him. We need the Westwood type player be we also need players to open up teams. There you go, based on what I have seen of him, a reasoned, thought out and researched argument, with numerous examples to back up my view that Holman could be a good creative player for us if he is given more opportunities in the middle.

A bit like that time you made up a load of stats and then disappeared when asked if you could provide them? Anyway, I have been back in the thread. I just haven't had anything to post. Our debate was over as you weren't reading what I was writing and just repeating yourself. We clearly weren't going to agree, so what's the point in posting with someone who just wants an argument? I left you to it. Firstly my stats aren't made up. But I do take the time to understand what they are telling me. I'm telling you and showing you that the pass accuracy stats you constantly use against him don't paint the definitive picture you think they do. The further up the field, and the more attacking your style of passing is has a negative effect on your accuracy. I've given numerous examples; None of the (for example top 10) most creative players in terms of assists have good pass accuracy, many not in the top 100 in pass accuracy. Totti has a low pass accuracy, lower than Holman, but has the most assists for Roma. Kevin De Brune of Werder has a pass accuracy of 76.5%, 15th best in the squad but has the most assist. Like those examples above Holman, has a low pass accuracy, I think this is due to his attacking passing style and his position. But I think his second best assist tally afford him a little more credit than many give him. Posters on here pull out stats, but I feel they don't often understand what the stats mean. Consider his position, the quality of his team, how his stats relate to others, his game time and most importantly watch him! See how he plays, then judge. I'd be tempted to play Holman more often, I think he presses well for 90, and is ambitious in his passing so gives an attacking threat too. N'Zogbia though great technically, can turn of when not in possession so I would opt for Holman in AMC versus Liverpool in a 4-2-3-1/4-5-1 style formation.

Oh dear, I see Stevo985 hasn't been to the thread for a while...

Ugh.... yada yada [yawn]...

Delph and Westwood could do with bulking up a bit with muscle.

Anyone who scored over 70 goals for us? It's over-taking, and it will be anyone who scored under 70 goals for us. Look at the list on the link provided to find out who's above and below him in the all time scoring charts.

It looks a bit like the old Stadio delle Alpi...

Looks like he had a decent game.

Not the worst attribute to 'fall back on' if you're a strikerNo but it took his edge away, he was still premiership quality, possibly still is. The mind is probably still willing, but the knees are shot, and there ain't nothing he can do about it.

I agree, he'll press and close down as well as provide a creative presence, and if he can bag another assist job done.

You hadn't actually typed anything.

Ok another example, the fabulously creative, mercurial Francesco Totti has a worse pass accuracy than Holman.

Then you're misguided to make it a big issue.

Well the passing argument has been put to bed, it's a non issue. His assists 'mean nothing' apparently, except erm... goals and points, 'meh all he did was pass it two yards...' Well if Holman trips over the ball and as he falls accidentally knocks it to the feet of a team mate to score and we keep picking up points it's good with me. But that would be an unfair reflection of a hard working player with the ability to create IMO.

It's very much not, to be fair. It's not, but it's joint second in the squad, and they're the players he's competing with.

Out of the top 10 most creative players in terms of assists none of them get into the top 20 on passing accuracy, many not even into the top 100. The further up the field you play, and the more attacking your inclination the lower your passing average will be. The attacking players - you want them to be getting goals and/or assists, taking chances, not making safe passes. In CM and defence passing successfully as often as possible is much more important. Holman's passing % is low, so what, he's an attacking midfielder - he has three assists - that's the stat you want to look at. He's also good at closing down, which is a bonus if you want to press your opponents high up.

Why? You'll have to explain that one to me.

Maybe we should drop Benteke too, his passing % is terrible. We should just ignore goals scored and goals created.

Very clever man, the Beatles went shit after he died.