Gleeson

[DaveO]

So explain why with only 14 try assists between our two centres our wingers scored 54 tries. It's no use singling out Gleeson based on the enGage super league stats for try assists when neither centre assisted the majority of the tries scored by the wingers.

Why do you insist on complicating things just to try and suit your argument?

I am not complicating anything and merely pointing out the majority of both wingers tries were not set up by their centres such that they were recorded as try assists. It's very simple.

The facts are Carmont had 10 try assists and Richards 29 tries. This works out at 1 for every one of Richards 2.9 tries.

Gleeson had 4 try assists and Goulding 25 tries which works out at 1 for every one of Gouldings 6.25 tries.

This clearly shows that Carmont sets up far more tries than Gleeson.

It shows he gave 6 more try assists having played two more games than Gleeson. "far more" is an exaggeration.

I would be absolutely certain that Carmont set up the majority of Richards tries considering the rest would have been largely set up by a combination of Leuluai, Deacon, Tomkins and O'Loughlin. Likewise I would be absolutely certain that Gleeson did not set up the majority of Gouldings tries and hence was not responsible for his winger scoring try after try. If you have actual facts that suggest otherwise I would be interested to hear them.

And since when did you become the de facto point of reference? You being certain is not a fact so what are your actual facts? The try assist stat?

Which leads me to another point I made you ignore. Why does Madge pick him if he is as bad as you make out? After all on the "Sell Goulding" thread you have this to say:

"There is no coach that would agree with you there and more importantly Maguire disagrees with you otherwise Goulding would not have been picked this week. I have read a couple of people saying that Goulding has a weakness for rushing in which is laughable. Even if you ignore the many tries he has saved by doing this the mere fact that anyone who does not follow Maguires instructions gets dropped should be enough to tell them he is doing as instructed and it is not a weakness. If Goulding was so bad he simply wouldnt be playing and he wouldnt be keeping Roberts/Pryce/Charnley from the right wing position."

I could write a similar paragraph substituting Gleesons name for Gouldings.

If you have such faith in Madge you have no argument re Glesson. Unless you only agree with the coach when it suits your argument.

I didnt ignore it, it once again was incorrect and wasnt even relevant to the posts I made. You asked why did Maguire not drop him? Well he was dropped last season.

He was dropped for disciplinary reasons and you know it. You also know that aside from that he got picked each week despite the faults you say he has and if he was as poor a centre as your fixation on the four try assists makes out that would not have happened.

I dont really know what relevance quoting me from a different thread, with a totally different context, has but I suppose it just shows what depths you will go to to argue for no reason. Again have I said he was a bad player? No. Have I said he shouldn't have been picked? No. Have I said Marsh should have been playing? No.

There is no different context. Someone was arguing as you have done with Gleeson that Gouding has faults in his game. You said "If Goulding was so bad he simply wouldnt be playing" Well if Gleeson was as bad as you make out then he would not be playing either. According to you:

"There were periods last season when he was very poor both in attack and defence." And since then you have fixed on the four try assists thing.

My point was "If he was as ineffective as you make out Madge would have dropped him as he does with other players like Roberts, not played him 22 times and in the GF."

He wasn't dropped so the coach, being "always right", would seemingly endorse my view of the player compared to yours.

However what I have said is that Gleeson was not consistently good last season. Indeed he was dropped as a result.

Indeed he wasn't. He got dropped for disciplinary reasons.

His form did pick up markedly towards the end of the season after being dropped and after various off field issues. When he is on form he is an asset to the team but there were many times earlier on in the season when he was not. Unlike you I do not think that Gleeson is the all round perfect centre and think that he has flaws in his game. One of these is being ball greedy which you disagree with. If you actually read what people say then you would save yourself a stack of time in your posts.

How on earth can you write "Unlike you I do not think that Gleeson is the all round perfect centre .." when you go on like you do saying things like "you seem to be wasting your time arguing against something you perceive I have said".

Where have I ever said "Gleeson is the all round perfect centre"? I have not. That is what you have chosen to assume so forgive me if I make assumptions about what you say.

And perhaps you should have worked out by now our wingers (plural) don't score most of their tries down to try assists by their centre.

I suppose Pat scoring a fair few tries from cross field kicks was his centres fault !!!

You are just presuming this though and as usual have nothing to back ip up. As I said earlier I would be fairly certain that Carmont does set up most of his wingers tries. Either way it is a fact that he sets up far, far more than Gleeson.

I am not presuming anything. I am simply using the bald statistics as you have done. 14 try assists from both centres for 54 tries say our centres do not set up the majority of our wingers tries. You have nothing to back up a contrary opinion.

Have I said he was crap? No.
Have I said he shouldnt have been picked? No.
Have I said he should have been left out by Maguire? No
(However there were occasions such as after the Leeds game when I would have dropped him)
Do I think Marsh should have played instead of Gleeson? No

And where have I said you did say any of those things? I do think that if he was as poor a centre as you make out Madge would have dropped him so he has a higher opinion of him than you do.

Do I think that Gleeson was not reponsible for his winger scoring lots of tries? Yes.
Do I think that it is a myth that Gleeson is a wingers centre and that he is greedy and selfish with the ball? Yes.
Would a fully fit and focused Gleeson be in the starting team? Yes
Was there games last year when Gleeson was poor? Yes.

What I have said is that he wasnt responsible for his winger running in try after try and your claim was totally inaccurate. This is confirmed by the stats. You can try and change the argument all you like and you can try and argue against things that I havent even said to your hearts content or indeed you can just admit you were wrong.

Gleesons contribution to the team was in my opinion far greater than you give him credit for and if you think the only contribution a centre makes to a winger scoring tries is the final pass you are not so clued up as you like to think.

[Dobby]

I am not complicating anything and merely pointing out the majority of both wingers tries were not set up by their centres

Hallelujah. Although I disagree about Carmont it is nice to see that you finally acknowledge that Gleeson did not set up most of his wingers tries. Why you couldnt have admitted you were wrong initially I dont know.

It shows he gave 6 more try assists having played two more games than Gleeson. "far more" is an exaggeration.

I would say that 10 is far more than 4, 250% more in fact. I even kindly broke this up into assists per game, in Carmonts case 1 for every one of Richards 2.9 tries and in Gleesons case 1 for every one of Gouldings 6.25 tries so the number of games played is irrelevant. If you interpret this any differently it is just arguing for arguments sake.

And since when did you become the de facto point of reference? You being certain is not a fact so what are your actual facts? The try assist stat?.

Pot, Kettle, The, Black, Calling - rearrange the words, if it isnt too difficult.

This was in reply to your post "It's no use singling out Gleeson based on the enGage super league stats for try assists when neither centre assisted the majority of the tries scored by the wingers.".

Was this claim of yours backed up by facts? No it wasnt. Like all of what you post it is just your opinion. If you ever try to back it up with stats you use stats that arent even relevant to what you are arguing because the stats that are show you are wrong. What does metres made or tackles have anything to do with setting up tries for a winger? The one stat that does matter you disregard.

I have posted the relevant facts if you actually bother to read them and digest them. From this it is my belief that Carmont did set up the majority of Richards tries and I have stated why this is the case. With 10 try assists it is perfectly feasible that he did when you consider the amount set up by a combination of Leuluai, Deacon, Tomkins, Roberts and O'Loughlin.

If is nice though that you now acknowledge that Gleeson does not set up many tries for his winger, at most 4. Thank you for admiting your initial post was wrong.

He was dropped for disciplinary reasons and you know it.

Can you prove this because from my information his poor form was certainly a factor.

You also know that aside from that he got picked each week despite the faults you say he has and if he was as poor a centre as your fixation on the four try assists makes out that would not have happened.

I have already answered this and made it as simple as possible so even you can understand so I dont know why you are repeating yourself.

There is no different context. Someone was arguing as you have done with Gleeson that Gouding has faults in his game. You said "If Goulding was so bad he simply wouldnt be playing" Well if Gleeson was as bad as you make out then he would not be playing either. According to you:

"There were periods last season when he was very poor both in attack and defence." And since then you have fixed on the four try assists thing.

My point was "If he was as ineffective as you make out Madge would have dropped him as he does with other players like Roberts, not played him 22 times and in the GF."

He wasn't dropped so the coach, being "always right", would seemingly endorse my view of the player compared to yours.

He was dropped though DaveO, as you yourself acknowledge in your post. He would have also have been dropped on another occasion if he hadnt have got injured anyway

Many fans have said that Gleeson was poor at times last season and it is a view that I also hold. He was also dropped which is an undeniable fact. From what I was told his form was a factor which you disagree with. Gleeson was not consistently good last season and I can cite games such as Leeds away and Sheffield in the cup when he was dreadful.

Indeed he wasn't. He got dropped for disciplinary reasons.

So you really think form had nothing to do with it? That is your opinion DaveO and we will have to disagree. For what its worth I know of one other occasion where he was dropped due to his form but then was injured anyway.

How on earth can you write "Unlike you I do not think that Gleeson is the all round perfect centre .."

Sorry if you dont understand a little sarcasm. I have said what Gleeson flaws are and you disgree. Therefore if you dont think that Gleeson is the all round perfect centre I would be most interested to know what you think his flaws are.

when you go on like you do saying things like "you seem to be wasting your time arguing against something you perceive I have said".

Gpartin summed up your ramblings perfectly, and much better than I could, in his excellant post so I will just refer you to that on page 10 of this thread. If I see it like you have quoted above, and so does he, do you not acknowledge that much of what you are posting has absolutely nothing to do with my initial reply to you post.

I am not presuming anything. I am simply using the bald statistics as you have done. 14 try assists from both centres for 54 tries say our centres do not set up the majority of our wingers tries. You have nothing to back up a contrary opinion.

You cannot compare players by adding their statistics together, my young son would know that. If Carmont had set up 15 of Richards 29 tries and Gleeson 4 of Gouldings 25 then Carmont would have conlusively set up most of Carmonts tries. However by using the DaveO school of statistics method you would still be arguing that our centres did not set up the majority of the tries and trying to skew Gleeson statistics.

I have explained why I think Carmont set up most of the tries and why Gleeson certainly did not and have added a damn site more to back up my opinion than you.

Either way it doesnt really concern me and what you have posted simply backs up what I said in my initial post when I disagreed with your view that Gleeson as a major reason why his winger was running in tries. As you yourself acknowledge Gleeson did not set up the majority of his wingers tries and so your initial claim was completely wrong and factually incorrect.

And where have I said you did say any of those things? I do think that if he was as poor a centre as you make out Madge would have dropped him so he has a higher opinion of him than you do.

You didnt, I was trying to make it simple for you and your very next line shows that it wasnt simple enough. How have I made him out to be a poor centre? I have not and I am not going to repeat myself again saying why I dont rate Gleeson as much as you just because you cant read and digest what people write. Again Maguire did drop Gleeson, which you acknowledge, so it is a little silly to again talk about Maguire not dropping Gleeson when everyone, yourself included, know that he did.

Gleesons contribution to the team was in my opinion far greater than you give him credit for and if you think the only contribution a centre makes to a winger scoring tries is the final pass you are not so clued up as you like to think.

That is your opinion as was clear in the initial post of yours that I replied to. I obviously disagree. I have never said the only contribution a centre makes to a winger is scoring tries. The way you try and twist what people post only ends up making you look daft DaveO. I really suggest you actually read Gpartin's post that I refered to earlier as you may realise how daft some of your replies and arguments are.

[Mr Sergent]

Pleeeeease Mike the character limiter already!!!!



ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........

[Kittwazzer]

Pleeeeease Mike the character limiter already!!!!



ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........

ASAP!!!!!

[Sutty]

Nearly a whole page of a thread used up by just two posts. Talk about taking the pee :conf:

[gpartin]

Nobody's forced to read 'em. I think what it shows in a certain case is that no matter how systematic the approach to replying may appear the end result is totally unrelated to the question asked. Its like a piece of 'English' creative writing written in Klingon.

[shaunedwardsfanclub]

All this and he has not even been sacked!!!!

[butt monkey]

Why can't Dobby and DaveO just call each other horrible names like normal people?

It takes up much less space and is probably more likely to lead to them coming to an agreement.

That works for me

[onedego]

could almost hear Pomp & Circumstance playing in the background.

[ancientnloyal]

Shizzle fizzle nizzle. Guess this thread has run it's course now we have the slanging matches. Nobody knows 100% what has happened or what is happening on here, and if they do it's correct not to put it on if they're cOnnected with the club (which some on here are).

Just wait for an official statement from Eric.