Lundstram win ratio.

[blade too long]

I agree that taken in isolation, his record is meaningless.

However, if we compare lundstram’s starting record:

P 22
W 4
D 6
L 12

Win percentage of 18%

And then compare it directly to our record WITHOUT him in the starting line up:

P 24
W 16
D 3
L 5

Win percentage of 67%.

I would suggest it starts to become relevant. That is an astonishing difference whichever way you look at it. This is for the same team, in the same league in the same season. That is a substantial enough sample size for the to be some causation alongside the correlation....

Edit: in addition to these stats, Lundstram started theee games before Coutts broke his leg: QPR away, Fulham at home and Forest away - we lost ALL THREE. And this is when we were second and absolutely flying. The correlation is terrifying!

but Lundstram wasnt an option when Coutts was in the team
we all know we faltered badly after coutts was lost so results before then are meaningless

we lost 12 games with lundstram in the team


but 13 with brooks in the team

of the games lundstram played in how many did fleck and duffy play
they were as big a part of the team as lundstram

as said before we only won 13 games with brooks playing in the team , yet youd think wed sold Messi for 50k
perceptions are what people make of them

 

[Prestonblade5]

Hmmmm

 

[FTPE]

Hey! I think he was the only player to have a shot on target today.
We are obviously a lot weaker without Fleck but Lunny was not to blame at all today.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Im FAR from his biggest fan and he isn’t an adequate replacement for Fleck but now isn’t the time to be dragging this up again.

1 loss after 3 straight wins, important we keep our togetherness and bounce straight back on Wednesday. Disappointing today but nothing to get too disheartened about.

Come on Blades.

 

[Snowman]

Hmmmm

Hmmm indeed.

Perhaps a little more dynamism in the midfield with pushing Bash in there and putting Stears in his place might have been the call. Admittedly I haven't yet watched it but from 59 years of watching football I can imagine the performance.

 

[1973Blade]

Lundstram was decent today played some decent balls, did well with his shot. We missed Fleck but it's harsh to blame Lundstram for today's defeat.

 

[Wards]

He played just fine today

We didn’t win, it happens - why do some always need a scapegoat?

 

[super_pig]

Not a moan or a criticism per se but I’m just wondering how many games we have won with him starting and how many games have we won when he’s started on the bench?

Someone alerted me to it on Facebook and I’m curious. I’m sure there’s a few stat men on here that can shine some light on it.

was about to ask the same question.. again

 

[blader]

He played just fine today

We didn’t win, it happens - why do some always need a scapegoat?

Because there a statistical significance between when he plays and when he doesn’t.

Even when he plays well, there’s clearly something about his game that doesn’t suit the players around him. It’s not to say he’s a terrible player but he clearly affects the way our team perform as the there is significant data to back it up!

 

[super_pig]

He played just fine today

We didn’t win, it happens - why do some always need a scapegoat?

i’m sick of repeating this but here goes again
you only get to be the scapegoat if you are crap and don’t deserve to be in the team.. we’ve all played the game and know who the crap players are.. plus we hardly ever win when he plays.. he’s like jonah
stevens was the scapegoat ealier because he was gash and shouldn't have been picked.. he’s miraculously found some form since johnson arrived

 

[Snowman]

Lundstram was decent today played some decent balls, did well with his shot. We missed Fleck but it's harsh to blame Lundstram for today's defeat.

That's the problem I have with the "Lunny Lovers". Decent isn't good enough. Can you imagine saying, Fleck was decent or Billy was decent? Decent is being used to say, "he was ok he didn't let us down". I don't want a player in the side who is an obvious reserve who will be doing his best but is decent. I want "fucking good". or at worst "didn't quite reach his usual standard". Apart from Stevens, who has really raised his game since Nosher put in that cross, there's nobody who we would refer to us "decent". I shall now retire to the ifollow replay and judge accordingly.

 

[S64 Blade]

Because there a statistical significance between when he plays and when he doesn’t.

Correlation and causation are two different things.

 

[1973Blade]

That's the problem I have with the "Lunny Lovers". Decent isn't good enough. Can you imagine saying, Fleck was decent or Billy was decent? Decent is being used to say, "he was ok he didn't let us down". I don't want a player in the side who is an obvious reserve who will be doing his best but is decent. I want "fucking good". or at worst "didn't quite reach his usual standard". Apart from Stevens, who has really raised his game since Nosher put in that cross, there's nobody who we would refer to us "decent". I shall now retire to the ifollow replay and judge accordingly.

I'm not a 'Lunny lover', but I am concerned that some fans want to make him a scapegoat. I guess we will see less of him as the season goes on, and I don't think he is quite good enough at this level, his distribution at times is poor. But some fans are quick to blame him. 'Decent' might not be good enough, but he is a lot better than a lot of fans give him credit for.

 

[blader]

Correlation and causation are two different things.

I am fully aware. But the sample size is statistically significant, so while it doesn’t prove the hypothesis, the data is significant enough to imply some causation. The difference is drastic.

 

[Deadbat]

Lundstram was decent today played some decent balls, did well with his shot. We missed Fleck but it's harsh to blame Lundstram for today's defeat.

I watched him carefully. He played it back or sideways for an easy pass. Then when he went forward he lost it with an aimless punt. He never carried the ball all game and seemed to just want rid of it.

He is not good enough. He was not at fault for us losing of course but we dont win many when he plays. Maybe it is just a coincident but I think not. When he plays we do drop off in quality in that area. He slows play down to a standstill almost.

 

[SwissBlade]

Hmmmm

Didn't do anything wrong today

 

[Harry's Game]

Lundstrum isn’t a bad player he’s just not a top half of the Championship player.

He would be a perfectly fine back up option in a top end of League one side, in fact he’d probably be starter and key man in many League one sides just like Ricky Holmes.

 

[jt64]

Lundstrum isn’t a bad player he’s just not a top half of the Championship player.

He would be a perfectly fine back up option in a top end of League one side, in fact he’d probably be starter and key man in many League one sides just like Ricky Holmes.

That he only plays when we're missing what is now two top half of the Championship players in his position might be related to us not playing as well when he does, it says as much about Fleck and Coutts as it does Lunny

 

[Prestonblade5]

Didn't do anything wrong today

That’s not really the point is it SwissBlade?

 

[SwissBlade]

That’s not really the point is it SwissBlade?

Depends what the point is being made.

 

[Prestonblade5]

Depends what the point is being made.

We don’t win when Lundstram plays.

He might not of done anything wrong but what did he do right?

From Deabats reports.....nothing.

 

[Ricky]

Even when he plays well, he doesn't necessarily benefit the team. That suggests he doesn't fit in with our way of playing - or just isn't good enough. And I don't see him improving in the way we need him to.

 

[SwissBlade]

We don’t win when Lundstram plays.

He might not of done anything wrong but what did he do right?

From Deabats reports.....nothing.

I watched the game on iFollow, Lundstram wasn't bad, played well alongside Norwood with Duffy in front.

The problem today wasn't Lundstram, yes we lost, but we had a very decent first half and i would say that we were the better side. Second half they pressed us a lot more and the gaps between the two strikers and Duffy got larger as Duffy tired. We had a decent effort on goal from Lundstram. But they looked the better side later on and were the better side overall in the second half. They worked hard for the win and they were perhaps a tad fortunate.

We certainly weren't overrun in midfield and the ref was stopping play a lot to give soft decisions, mostly to them

I don't read Deadbats reports, i don't find them very objective.

 

[Prestonblade5]

I watched the game on iFollow, Lundstram wasn't bad, played well alongside Norwood with Duffy in front.

The problem today wasn't Lundstram, yes we lost, but we had a very decent first half and i would say that we were the better side. Second half they pressed us a lot more and the gaps between the two strikers and Duffy got larger as Duffy tired. We had a decent effort on goal from Lundstram. But they looked the better side later on and were the better side overall in the second half. They worked hard for the win and they were perhaps a tad fortunate.

We certainly weren't overrun in midfield and the ref was stopping play a lot to give soft decisions, mostly to them

I don't read Deadbats reports, i don't find them very objective.

As said in a previous post I don’t think Lundstram is a bad player but for whatever reason when he plays we don’t win. The stats are alarming.

 

[robbiez666]

Lundstram is often asked to play in a way which doesn't really suit him. Square peg in a round hole and it often shows.

 

[super_pig]

Didn't do anything wrong today

that’s him in a nutshell.. frightened not to make a mistake so plays the safe option every time.. he never attacks the space he always stops and checks
drives me insane
doesn’t make a mistake but doesn’t do anything positive

 

[SwissBlade]

that’s him in a nutshell.. frightened not to make a mistake so plays the safe option every time.. he never attacks the space he always stops and checks
drives me insane
doesn’t make a mistake but doesn’t do anything positive

He was more positive today.

 

[SwissBlade]

As said in a previous post I don’t think Lundstram is a bad player but for whatever reason when he plays we don’t win. The stats are alarming.

If its just stats then perhaps its because he just doesn't play in the games where Billy scores.
Maybe we should only bring Lunny on when Billy has scored... Like against Villa

 

[Balham]

Lundstram was decent today. However, asking him to perform the Fleck role isn't ever going to work and that contributed to our defeat today: Fleck will drive forward on the ball and beat the first man whereas that's just not Lundstam's game. Fingers crossed Fleck is back for Birmingham.

 

[Guesty]

If its just stats then perhaps its because he just doesn't play in the games where Billy scores.
Maybe we should only bring Lunny on when Billy has scored... Like against Villa

Maybe Sharp doesn't score because Lundstram is playing.