I was only messing, but my point was that fleck dominated a weakend Mk Dons midfield, one that had 64% of possession against us at the Ricoh.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19709691
Although impressive we only had 50% at their place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20823148
And before anyone says, yes I know we won the game therefore possession is merely academic.
Fleck only came on as a sub, on the wing, so one could say Fleck made the difference! :laugh: I'm joking, I think the MR way hadn't 'entrenched' itself before that game, but by the away game it had, that's the key difference for me.
The way we played in midfield that day, I'd say we probably would have beaten them even if they had Chadwick and Gleeson.
Possession is an important stat for me, but I do find it annoying when someone says 'we had 53% possession, we dominated' after losing or drawing, even if they had less shots and other important stats. In my view, possession is only an indicator of how the game is going, if you have more possession, in theory, you should have more chances and more chances, in theory, should lead to goals, but football isn't as black and white, as it's what you do with possession is what matters, we could play in our own half and accumulate 70 odd % possession, without making any chances etc. you can't really discount any stat in my book, apart from player win % as they CAN be tenuous and ambiguous but even then, they have validity over time.
At the end of the day, goals is what counts, but possession, corners, shots etc. stats indicate how good the performance was, and a good performance is more likely to produce a win.
Even at our place, the stats, bar possession, suggested there was nothing between us.
