Lundstram contract

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Mojo

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
885
Reaction score
1,821
I like Lunny. Tall, strong, very two footed, technically excellent. What I don't like is him having a face like a smacked arse since January. Surely we have offered him the going rate the rest of our players are on?
 

Snake

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
815
Reaction score
2,494
Agree with this. I don't blame Lundstram for asking for more money after a career year, when he was (potentially) in the last year of his contract, and I don't blame the club for (a) not giving him that money given this level of performance was never seen from him before and (b) taking the option to extend and presumably (d) selling if the price is right.

And FWIW the price should be an 8 figure one at the moment, because we are unlikely to get better for less.
I can see him being used as part of a player swap type deal. Something like him plus £2m for Ramsdale.
 

SufcBilly

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
1,765
Reaction score
2,643
Location
Beighton
I like Lunny. Tall, strong, very two footed, technically excellent. What I don't like is him having a face like a smacked arse since January. Surely we have offered him the going rate the rest of our players are on?
Tall- he's 5"11
Strong- He's bulky ill give you that
Very two footed- If he cant pass with his strong foot not sure why you think he can pass with his weak foot
Technically excellent- I'm sorry i just cannot accept that, had a purple patch, nowhere near good enough for us if we wish to progress
 

Torrix1889

A reight Bobby Dazzler
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
4,616
Reaction score
5,234
Location
Bankside
I was always a Lunny fan, even back in the day when he was trying to fill Couttsys boots i could see there was a player there and i was delighted he started the season so well.

What has disappointed me and as alluded to above is the big-bollocks attitude he appears to have developed, walking around with a face like a smacked arse then not celebrating goals, (no smile, pointing to himself as if to say "I'm the man").....well sorry JL7, you aint......ta-ta.
 

Mojo

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
885
Reaction score
1,821
Tall- he's 5"11
Strong- He's bulky ill give you that
Very two footed- If he cant pass with his strong foot not sure why you think he can pass with his weak foot
Technically excellent- I'm sorry i just cannot accept that, had a purple patch, nowhere near good enough for us if we wish to progress
He's the most two footed player we have and is technically very very good. If you can't see that then I'm not sure what you are watching. Look at his goal against Bournemouth for example.
 

Kanye

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
877
Reaction score
1,831
He's the most two footed player we have and is technically very very good. If you can't see that then I'm not sure what you are watching. Look at his goal against Bournemouth for example.

You have to assume he's trolling.
 

HeySethUTB

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
987
Reaction score
1,602
The stats say differently! Same goals. More assists, better passing accuracy. More distance covered, more blocks, more clearances. By nearly every measure he has outperformed fleck and I am a big John fleck fan. This is my point, put bias aside compare the numbers and lunny has out performed flecky. I would love blades analytics to give us a breakdown of midfielders whose outputs matched Lunnys so we can do a true comparison on what he would cost to replace.

On the interesting Lundstram and Fleck debate, with statistical surprises.

it’s a long read but hope this helps, skip to summary if needs be.

Goals and chance creation (assists).

Both players have scored 5 goals. John fleck, however, has shot on target percentage of 37.5% in comparison to Lundstrums 25%, Fleck also contributes slightly more SOT per 90 minutes at 0.43, Lundstrum contributes 0.40. When looking at Expected goals Fleck (+1.6) has outperformed Lundstrum (-0.2). In relation to assists Lundstrum has 3 and Fleck 2, although, Fleck is far greater at creating chances with a shot/chance creation Per 90 of 2.56, Lundstrum creates only 1.41 per 90. Putting fleck into a similar bracket as Dele Alli, Jonjo Shelvey and Stuart Armstrong. He is ranked 1st at shot/chance creation at Sheffield United followed by Norwood, Sharp, Osborn, Mousset, Stevens, McGoldrick, Baldock, Zivkovic and then Lundstrum.


Passing and possession.

Lundstram has out performed fleck in overall pass completion, althought, different pass metrics exist and are effected by dead and live pass situations. For example John fleck has taken 134 dead passes these are made up of corners, FKs, throw ins Etc of these 108 are corners or FKs. To add balance Lundstrum who has only taken 23 of such passes (11 Being CKs/FKs) this gives him an advantage in the sense that it is a lot harder to complete a pass that is being contested via set piece in comparison to a live “in play” pass. Furthermore, when looking at pass type Fleck Marginally outperforms Lundstram on shorter passing 39.2% to 38.2%, medium range passing stats are identical at 85.5% it’s only longer range passing at which Lundstram significantly outperforms fleck with statistics of 51.6% (Fleck) and 73.6% (Lundstrum). Some longer range passes (passes over 20 yards) may well be CKs/FKs that Fleck/Lundstrum have taken which would have an impact on this metric. It would certainly be interesting to look at how many of the CKs and FKs were classed as long range in order to recalculate is long range pass percentage for Fleck. 100% = 79.2% 80% = 71.4%. Lundstrum (5340) has run more yards than fleck (4839) but much of this running is not progressive I.e. running towards goal with the ball. What’s impressive is fleck has had less ball carries than Lundstram and yet still ran 859 more progressive yards.

Defensive actions.

Lundstrum outperforms Fleck in overall tackles won percentage with 66% TklW, Flecks percentage is slightly lower at 63.1%. The frequency of tackles made by Lundstrum is higher this season he attempted 50, to flecks 38, this accounts for the defensive, midfield and attacking thirds. The three players who have matched Lundstrum in relation to this stat are Berge, Jagielka and Bešić, Players who have better this stat are C.Robinson (100%), Zivkovic (100%) and L.Freeman (80%) important to note that these are bit part players. When it comes to blocking the clear winner is Fleck with 44 blocks with 41 resulting in possession interceptions, Lundstrum has made 29 with 25 resulting in interceptions. What’s interesting is Berge has effectively matched this stat with 28 blocks in only 10 games of which have resulted in more turnovers of possession than Lundstrum. Tackles won Vs dribbles Lundstrum is better winning the battle 27.9% of the time in comparison to Flecks 24.3%. Once again you need to throw Berge into the mix who eclipses both of them with an impressive 40% the same as Basham. Fleck leads the way with loose ball recoveries with 250, Lundstrum 235, however lundstrum has a better aerial duel win percentage.

In Summary

Fleck offers more in an attacking and creative sense. > SOT%, Chance creation.
Lundstrum does have the better long range passing stats, however, other factors will play a part (CKs/FKs).
Both players same similar shorter/medium range passing stats.
Lundstrum runs more yards, however, Fleck is more progressive with the ball at feet (859 yards more).
Lundstrum has one of the best tackles won percentage at the club.
Fleck is superior in terms of blocking and interceptions.
Fleck recovers more loose balls
Lundstrum is much better in the air.
Sander Berge is ever present.

My opinion

Fleck offers far too much in an attacking sense and is far more influential when we are on the front foot. Passing stats and defensively they are equally competitive with Lundstram edging it, the problem Lundstrum has is just how good Sander Berge is after just 10 games for the club in all areas. To drop Fleck would be foolish, almost suicidal, from a attacking perspective. This leaves wilder with the decision of playing a very good defensive player who chips in with goals and assists (Lundstrum) or two all rounders one of which is also very good defensively (Berge) who can affect both ends of the pitch,who, legitimately turn the ball over at a much higher rate, not just block shots. Not even going to talk about Ben Osborn who is also pushing Lundstrum statistically. It does appear like Lundstrum can’t stand the heat in the kitchen so is willing to walk away, to ensure he has game time. I feel like Berge and Fleck are the way forward from an attacking standpoint and can’t see the omission of Lundstrum hurting us too much defensively, Lundstrum will know this, therefore doing whats best for himself, no room for sentiment. UTB!
 
Last edited:

adebo

Member
Joined
May 19, 2016
Messages
645
Reaction score
657
On the interesting Lundstram and Fleck debate, with statistical surprises.

it’s a long read but hope this helps, skip to summary if needs be.

Goals and chance creation (assists).

Both players have scored 5 goals. John fleck, however, has shot on target percentage of 37.5% in comparison to Lundstrums 25%, Fleck also contributes slightly more SOT per 90 minutes at 0.43, Lundstrum contributes 0.40. When looking at Expected goals Fleck (+1.6) has outperformed Lundstrum (-0.2). In relation to assists Lundstrum has 3 and Fleck 2, although, Fleck is far greater at creating chances with a shot/chance creation Per 90 of 2.56, Lundstrum creates only 1.41 per 90. Putting fleck into a similar bracket as Dele Alli, Jonjo Shelvey and Stuart Armstrong. He is ranked 1st at shot/chance creation at Sheffield United followed by Norwood, Sharp, Osborn, Mousset, Stevens, McGoldrick, Baldock, Zivkovic and then Lundstrum.


Passing and possession.

Lundstram has out performed fleck in overall pass completion, althought, different pass metrics exist and are effected by dead and live pass situations. For example John fleck has taken 134 dead passes these are made up of corners, FKs, throw ins Etc of these 108 are corners or FKs. To add balance Lundstrum who has only taken 23 of such passes (11 Being CKs/FKs) this gives him an advantage in the sense that it is a lot harder to complete a pass that is being contested via set piece in comparison to a live “in play” pass. Furthermore, when looking at pass type Fleck Marginally outperforms Lundstram on shorter passing 39.2% to 38.2%, medium range passing stats are identical at 85.5% it’s only longer range passing at which Lundstram significantly outperforms fleck with statistics of 51.6% (Fleck) and 73.6% (Lundstrum). Some longer range passes (passes over 20 yards) may well be CKs/FKs that Fleck/Lundstrum have taken which would have an impact on this metric. It would certainly be interesting to look at how many of the CKs and FKs were classed as long range in order to recalculate is long range pass percentage for Fleck. 100% = 79.2% 80% = 71.4%. Lundstrum (5340) has run more yards than fleck (4839) but much of this running is not progressive I.e. running towards goal with the ball. What’s impressive is fleck has had less ball carries than Lundstram and yet still ran 859 more progressive yards.

Defensive actions.

Lundstrum outperforms Fleck in overall tackles won percentage with 66% TklW, Flecks percentage is slightly lower at 63.1%. The frequency of tackles made by Lundstrum is higher this season he attempted 50, to flecks 38, this accounts for the defensive, midfield and attacking thirds. The three players who have matched Lundstrum in relation to this stat are Berge, Jagielka and Bešić, Players who have better this stat are C.Robinson (100%), Zivkovic (100%) and L.Freeman (80%) important to note that these are bit part players. When it comes to blocking the clear winner is Fleck with 44 blocks with 41 resulting in possession interceptions, Lundstrum has made 29 with 25 resulting in interceptions. What’s interesting is Berge has effectively matched this stat with 28 blocks in only 10 games of which have resulted in more turnovers of possession than Lundstrum. Tackles won Vs dribbles Lundstrum is better winning the battle 27.9% of the time in comparison to Flecks 24.3%. Once again you need to throw Berge into the mix who eclipses both of them with an impressive 40% the same as Basham. Fleck leads the way with loose ball recoveries with 250, Lundstrum 235, however lundstrum has a better aerial duel win percentage.

In Summary

Fleck offers more in an attacking and creative sense. > SOT%, Chance creation.
Lundstrum does have the better long range passing stats, however, other factors will play a part (CKs/FKs).
Both players same similar shorter/medium range passing stats.
Lundstrum runs more yards, however, Fleck is more progressive with the ball at feet (859 yards more).
Lundstrum has one of the best tackles won percentage at the club.
Fleck is superior in terms of blocking and interceptions.
Fleck recovers more loose balls
Lundstrum is much better in the air.
Sander Berge is ever present.

My opinion

Fleck offers far too much in an attacking sense and is far more influential when we are on the front foot. Passing stats and defensively they are equally competitive with Lundstram edging it, the problem Lundstrum has is just how good Sander Berge is after just 10 games for the club in all areas. To drop Fleck would be foolish, almost suicidal, from a attacking perspective. This leaves wilder with the decision of playing a very good defensive player who chips in with goals and assists (Lundstrum) or two all rounders one of which is also very good defensively (Berge) who can affect both ends of the pitch,who, legitimately turn the ball over at a much higher rate, not just block shots. Not even going to talk about Ben Osborn who is also pushing Lundstrum statistically. It does appear like Lundstrum can’t stand the heat in the kitchen so is willing to walk away, to ensure he has game time. I feel like Berge and Fleck are the way forward from an attacking standpoint and can’t see the omission of Lundstrum hurting us too much defensively, Lundstrum will know this, therefore doing whats best for himself, no room for sentiment. UTB!
A massive thanks for the stats which offers decent comparison I personally appreciate the effort put in. (however you do have a fleck bias lol)
from your points it shows very little difference between the 2 which was my overall point. Yet one is treated like jesus by our fans and one like judas. I will miss lunny purely because the best we played this season was with him in the side. He offered us better balance than with sander in the team. No one is irreplaceable but with us it's about system not individuals and the system worked best with him in it.
 

Cerberus Blade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
13,631
Reaction score
20,923
I don't blame Lunny one bit for trying to get the best possible deal he can for himself. He never made the break through at Everton, he was loaned out to Doncaster Rovers, Yeovil Town, Leyton Orient, Blackpool and Scunthorpe United. None of them seemed to want to make it permanent. He joined Oxford United in League 2 and did better there, becoming club Captain in his second season. Then we bought him. He didn't pull many trees up for us until, somehow, he got his chance this last season in the Prem! And he did really well in some matches, but frustratingly poor in others. However, his "moment in the sun" definitely came for him in the early part of last season and can you imagine for one moment how his market value has increased as a result of that? From Captaining a League 2 side to making his mark in the Premier League in less than 2 years! It's like he's fallen down a well and come up with 2 ham sandwiches!

His past track record doesn't suggest that he's going to maintain a sustained level of high performance at Premier League level, whoever he plays for. He's at a point in his career now where he'll never have a better chance to move for big money. Good for him, good for us.

Get him sold. We can definitely do better. And GLTTL btw - nothing against him whatsoever - but the time is right for both parties to make the most of this opportunity.
 

BladeTillIDie

Active Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,451
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Sheffield

Sheffield United will allow John Lundstram to leave Bramall Lane during the January transfer window, The Star understands, after failing to secure a breakthrough in their contract talks with the midfielder.​

 

HD8 Blades

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
447
Reaction score
863
Location
Kirkburton. HD8
A mistake on his part. On his day he’s good as part of our system but nothing special. Can’t see a rush to buy him
 

LS16Blade

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2016
Messages
630
Reaction score
2,000
When the post-mortem of this season is undertaken, the decision to engage in prolonged contract negotiations with Lundstram's agent - which is completely out of character for Wilder - and to then keep selecting him, will be one of the more puzzling ones amongst a number of curious decisions in relation to the midfield during the close season.
 

Bladesthorpe

Active Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,555
Now get the ungrateful fucker out of the squad pronto and stop letting him saunter about the pitch like he’s Xavi, now fuck off!

Players like Norwood sits on the bench whilst this cunt plays, just wow!
Take it you don't like him, if we could amalgamate Lunny and Norwood we would have a good player. Sadly Lunny doesn't have the skill and Norwood doesn't have the engine, I won't worry if he does go but I would say thanks for the effort, never gives less than 100% even if things don't work out sometimes GLTTL.
 

BladeTillIDie

Active Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,451
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Sheffield
Take it you don't like him, if we could amalgamate Lunny and Norwood we would have a good player. Sadly Lunny doesn't have the skill and Norwood doesn't have the engine, I won't worry if he does go but I would say thanks for the effort, never gives less than 100% even if things don't work out sometimes GLTTL.
To be fair Wiz is a good lad and has backed lundstram loads.
 

SUFCinks

Active Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
1,556
Reaction score
2,221
I dont blame him for wanting more money, BUT if i were him i wouldnt be expecting anymore game time. I think he could become a squad player at newcastle/burnley at best otherwise i think he will more than likely struggle and probably have to drop into the champ for regular football.
 

Danny_Blade

Active Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
1,379
Location
Sheffield
I take it we'll only get a nominal fee for him then (if there are any clubs interested in him) as there'll only be about 5 months left to run on his contract once January arrives?

But still I reckon its not all bad. Despite it being unlikely we'll get much of a profit if at all when he leaves we only signed him for about £750,000 so to be fair at least we've had some value out of him in terms of a few important goals and some decent performances.
 

jono_t2000

Active Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
3,184
I would be shocked and disappointed if Lundstram was still in the matchday squad now.

I wouldn't even have him training with the first team tbh, send him down to the U23's or sommet, no problem with him not signing new contract but its obvious that he doesn't want to be at the club anymore.

Lets treat it like he's already gone and start working on life after Lunny.
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Top Bottom