WiganWarriorsFans.com

Observer says he is believed to have flown out to Australia.

That probably means WW has shoved him in rehab.

highland convert wrote:That probably means WW has shoved him in rehab.

They tried to get him go to rehab. He said “No. No. No!”

Oh hang on, that might have been Amy Winehouse!

Dobby wrote:

Gleeson had 4 try assists in the whole of last season which is very poor for a centre, as a comparison Carmont had 10. When you think that Goulding scored 25 tries on that wing and Roberts also scored some then that really is poor. It is a complete myth that Gleeson set up loads of tries for his winger last season and I would be fairly certain that someone like O'Loughlin set up far more.

You are being very selective with your stats IMO so allow me to do the same. Gleeson played two fewer games than Carmont in 2010 but Gleeson made 1863 v 1594 meters, made 22 v 13 offloads (as significant a stats as the assists IMO), bust 48 v 41 tackles, made fewer errors a mere 10 compared to 26 and gave away fewer penalties, 11 v 15.

Does that make Carmont a bad centre? No. The fact is we had two good centres in our side for the first time in a long time and this was a big reason we got to and won the GF in my opinion.

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.

I am not being selective at all. The only stat that is relevant to your claim that he was the reason that his winger was running in tries is his try assist stat. This is obviously very poor and it totally disproves your argument.

Well no it doesn't. You say its the only relevant stat. How do you know if all those offloads subsequently (if not directly) didn't lead to a tries? Or all those meters didn't set us up to score on the wing?

How do you know he didn't pass to the winger more times than say Carmont but the winger didn't score off the pass?

How do you know our tactics explain why both centres only have a total of 14 try assists between them yet our wingers scored a total of 54 tries?

You can also look back over Gleesons stats over the years and see he has often had far more try assists than 4 but when playing for other teams. That tends to support the different tactics theory and in itself shows you are being selective.

The old adage there are lies, damned lies and statistics rings true here IMO.

Even without the stats there were some games that Gleeson's winger never saw the ball, barr cut out passes from O'Loughlin or Tomkins that missed out Gleeson completely, and this was commented on fairly regularly last season.

I lost count of the amount of times there was an overlap and Gleeson shaped to pass only to dummy and step off his right going for glory himself.

I don't recognise the Gleeson you are on about.

Trouble is your performances are always judged on the wedge your on and expectation you have over your name.

If you looked at the performance of George and Gleeson last season they were probably very similar but because George came without a fan fare and we are lead to believe he's not (or wasn't) on a lot of money you think "that guys brilliant"

Gleeson came with a big name and on a big wedge he was expected to produce something of class in every match to justify this and a solid performance that would earn certain players plaudits can end up earning different players contempt depending on rep and wage. Im not saying this is wrong but to say Gleeson was bad i think is inaccurate, at his worst he was solid, class players have a way of producing even when not in form. His defence will be missed i think.

Genuinely good centre's are a rarity which is why they are such a valuable commodity.

DaveO wrote:

Dobby wrote:I am not being selective at all. The only stat that is relevant to your claim that he was the reason that his winger was running in tries is his try assist stat. This is obviously very poor and it totally disproves your argument.

Well no it doesn't. You say its the only relevant stat. How do you know if all those offloads subsequently (if not directly) didn't lead to a tries? Or all those meters didn't set us up to score on the wing?

How do you know he didn't pass to the winger more times than say Carmont but the winger didn't score off the pass?

How do you know our tactics explain why both centres only have a total of 14 try assists between them yet our wingers scored a total of 54 tries?

You can also look back over Gleesons stats over the years and see he has often had far more try assists than 4 but when playing for other teams. That tends to support the different tactics theory and in itself shows you are being selective.

The old adage there are lies, damned lies and statistics rings true here IMO.

Oh my god

You can go around in circles as much as you like with your how about this, how about that, how do you not know etc. It proves nothing and just from watching the matches I know that much of what you are trying to argue is rubbish. Yes Gleeson made some good hard yards, yes he was often solid in defence, albeit apart from a few poor games, but none of this led to him setting up tries for his winger and none of it means that he was a major reason why his winger was running in tries like you claimed. Indeed you could use your arguments about any player being responsible for a try.

The facts are that Gleeson had 4 try assists and did not set up many tries at all for his winger or indeed any player. Centres are judged by their try assists, as funnily enough one of their main jobs is setting up tries for their winger, and only 4 over the course of a season is pathetic for a centre by any measure. I dont really know why you are so bothered about it, if you want to believe the myth that Gleeson set up all, or most, of the wingers tries on the right whether that be Goulding or Roberts then that is up to you. However from my experience of watching the games I know that this is not true and the stats confirm it.

DaveO wrote:

Dobby wrote:Even without the stats there were some games that Gleeson's winger never saw the ball, barr cut out passes from O'Loughlin or Tomkins that missed out Gleeson completely, and this was commented on fairly regularly last season.

I lost count of the amount of times there was an overlap and Gleeson shaped to pass only to dummy and step off his right going for glory himself.

I don't recognise the Gleeson you are on about.

Maybe you should open your eyes a little more then and not just presume that just because a winger scores plenty of tries that it is all down to his centre.

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:Trouble is your performances are always judged on the wedge your on and expectation you have over your name.

If you looked at the performance of George and Gleeson last season they were probably very similar but because George came without a fan fare and we are lead to believe he's not (or wasn't) on a lot of money you think "that guys brilliant"

Gleeson came with a big name and on a big wedge he was expected to produce something of class in every match to justify this and a solid performance that would earn certain players plaudits can end up earning different players contempt depending on rep and wage. Im not saying this is wrong but to say Gleeson was bad i think is inaccurate, at his worst he was solid, class players have a way of producing even when not in form. His defence will be missed i think.

Genuinely good centre's are a rarity which is why they are such a valuable commodity.

You can add a players reputation for past deeds to that as well. As soon as they don't play as well, there is sometimes an assumption that they have returned to bad old habits (which case in point looks likely)

Dobby wrote: You can go around in circles as much as you like with your how about this, how about that, how do you not know etc. It proves nothing and just from watching the matches I know that much of what you are trying to argue is rubbish.

That's funny because I came to the same conclusion about the rubbish you have been writing. I suggest you read some of the other opinions in this thread re Gleesons contribution to the team and tell them they are writing rubbish. I doubt you will somehow.

Yes Gleeson made some good hard yards, yes he was often solid in defence, albeit apart from a few poor games, but none of this led to him setting up tries for his winger and none of it means that he was a major reason why his winger was running in tries like you claimed. Indeed you could use your arguments about any player being responsible for a try.

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.

The facts are that Gleeson had 4 try assists and did not set up many tries at all for his winger or indeed any player. Centres are judged by their try assists, as funnily enough one of their main jobs is setting up tries for their winger, and only 4 over the course of a season is pathetic for a centre by any measure. I dont really know why you are so bothered about it, if you want to believe the myth that Gleeson set up all, or most, of the wingers tries on the right whether that be Goulding or Roberts then that is up to you. However from my experience of watching the games I know that this is not true and the stats confirm it.

It's your blind interpretation of the stats that confirm what you want to believe - that Gleeson isn't that good a centre and that is patently untrue. 4 try assists and he crap according to you. Well there is more to centre play than that and clearly that's the case in the current Wigan team or they would both have been dropped.

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.

Maybe you should open your eyes a little more then and not just presume that just because a winger scores plenty of tries that it is all down to his centre.

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 !!!

I too argued that Madge would have dropped Goulding if his defence was as bad as people were making out, yet I agree with the points made about Gleeson that he does have a tendency to come inside rather than pass to his wing, and that he has had some games where he really hasn't done much. Not doing as well as you're capable of in attack is not grounds for being dropped anywhere near the same as totally ignoring team orders in defence to the point that you let in three tries, as some were suggesting of Goulding, so its hardly a contradiction to hold these views. Overall I'd say that Gleeson has benefited the team and with the exception of a few games he's been solid but unspectacular.

I think that you've got to the point in this argument where you've forgotten why the opposing view to yours was being made in the first place so here's a reminder. You said:

DaveO wrote:he is still one of the best centres in the league and a major reason why his winger was running in tries.

Now, you can quote all the stats in the world, say how its a team game, or argue why you think Gleeson is a decent player. Each of these points may well be true, but the idea is that when someone disagrees with something you say your reply is supposed to explain why you believe the statement you made rather than to try twist what's being said and attempt to make people look stupid by inventing contradictions where there aren't any. If I were to claim the moon is made of green cheese and somebody says it isn't, 3 perfectly true statements about my shoe size, the distance to Mars and the cost of diesel would not then prove my point.

I would say that try assists are a pretty good measure of whether a centre has been a major reason for his winger scoring a lot of tries or not, although in teams where cut-out passes are used regularly a centre could have zero assists and still be a good centre. However, since "our wingers (plural) don't score most of their tries down to try assists by their centre." I can't see how it could be argued that any of our centres have been a major reason for our wingers scoring loads of tries.

DaveO wrote:That's funny because I came to the same conclusion about the rubbish you have been writing. I suggest you read some of the other opinions in this thread re Gleesons contribution to the team and tell them they are writing rubbish. I doubt you will somehow.

Once again you seem to be wasting your time arguing against something you perceive I have said. Have I said he didnt contribute? No. Do I think is contribution is overated? Yes. Do I think we would have won the Grand Final without him? Yes.

I hope that is simple enough for you to understand.

DaveO wrote: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?

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. 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.

DaveO wrote:It's your blind interpretation of the stats that confirm what you want to believe - that Gleeson isn't that good a centre and that is patently untrue. 4 try assists and he crap according to you. Well there is more to centre play than that and clearly that's the case in the current Wigan team or they would both have been dropped.

Again I have not said he is crap, just that he not responsible for his winger scoring try after try and that 4 try assists is pathetic for a centre. I also said this merely backed up what I have always thought that he was ball greedy and a selfish centre.

DaveO wrote: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.

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.

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

DaveO wrote: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.

As per usual you take absolutely no notice of the points that people make and completely miss the point. It does lead me to wonder if you even take notice of what people post or just argue for arguments sake. Sorry if all of this is a bit difficult for you to understand but I will limit it to one word answers so you dont get confused.

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
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.