The only place to be

Sorry Lenny Henry, but they (Africans) aren't a single group of people. They are rich and poor, much like other places around the globe. South Africans especially are becoming increasingly wealthy with a burgeoning middle-class emerging from the shackles of Apartheid and they didn't have a problem packing out the stadiums and supporters' areas in 2010.

The big team we knocked out had their reserves up against us whilst we knackered our most important players. It might've been a case of Robbie showing his inexperience or him simply putting out what was available, but our strategy in this cup has been flawed all season. Personally I'm finding it very hard to give a shit about tomorrow.

People were telling me how important this tournament was when I expressed objections to it. It would appear as though Africans might agree with me based on the half-empty stadiums that both Ivory Coast and Nigeria have played in.

Benitez has no say on the Lampard situation though, and saying stuff to the press simply exacerbates an already divisive issue. Mourinho may find use for him going forward, and he's certainly be able to handle him in the squad unlike certain other managers, but I'm not sure where he'd use him. We need to sign someone in that position for next year and I'd rather have a young prospect like McEachran or Chalobah coming off the bench but if Jose thinks Lampard will help us win stuff then he might keep him around.

It's not Rafa's choice to make though. What on Earth can he say? As for Mourinho keeping him, I think he might but having come from a team with Alonso and Modric in it I'm not sure exactly where he'd play him. Maybe he could use him on the coaching staff though although I have no idea if Lamps wants to go into that side of the game.

For years and years, we've had the squad depth to have a go at different things. We've also been a very pragmatic club and right now we have to be realistic and plan accordingly. Also, not all cups are equal. This is very much a tin pot cup nowadays and we should've used it purely to give young players experience, not gassing them against United's reserves before a long trip to Swansea. A cup where the final four are us, Swansea, Villa and Bradford is not a top competition anymore.

Mikel has an average rating of 6.79 in league games on whoscored.com. Fellaini's is 7.56. Throwing stats around without context is fun. Personally I like to factor in what I see on the pitch too, and I still haven't received an adequate answer as to why Mikel has still failed to win over such a large proportion of supporters.

Which is what I think we have through the likes of Hazard, Mata, Moses and the playmaker I'd like to have alongside a DM in midfield. I think Ramires is great at turning defence into attack against teams who commit men forward, but if we had a stronger midfield I don't think they'd be in a position to do that quite so much. That's what my original point related to. If Ramires is our best player, then chances are we're playing on the back foot and he's either defending well (as he did on Sunday) or leading the charge on the breakaway (as he did against Barca). Ideally, we wouldn't be in that position in the first place though.

You can't tell everything about that goal from one gif. You need to see the players' movement before the goal to see who was marking who and the dropped assignments. On the 'human being scale', I've actually been mightily impressed in a couple of games (Man City 2010, Man United 2012) to really see Fellani put the team on his back. That is to say he's taken over games, be it in a defensive capacity or as a second striker, and drive his team forward whilst dominating the other team. Not all players have the capacity or the will to do that. Sorry I don't have a gif or a chart for that.

I think that game perfectly encapsulates where Ramires is at his best - when we're playing with out backs against the walls and teams commit men forwards. He's able to exploit the broken field, when players are pulled out of position and transition into defence slowly, and make surging runs. But that depends on other teams dictating the tempo and dominating possession. My contention is that other options in that position would actually allow us to control the game better. Some should really put individual performances into the context of the game - that's the game they see on the pitch, not on whoscored.com.

You realise that Luiz has only played less than 10 games in midfield don't you? It's not about covering space, but also making a nuisance of yourself to disrupt the other team's rhythm (I'm not sure which graph best shows that for you) and getting the team moving on the front foot.

Wow. That's an amazing picture. And a gif too. All I had was my eyes . I'm not saying he's the greatest player on Earth and I'm not saying he's perfect, but I think he'd be better in our team than Mikel. I was actually surprised with his passing last night. I thought he kept the ball moving around the pitch well (especially in his own half). To me he looked to be playing deeper, but if you tell me he was playing a trequatisa then who am I to disagree. When I watched him, he looked to be playing a lot deeper. In fact he seems to be all over the pitch which is fairly impressive. Having looked at whoscored.com though, he seems to have an 80% pass completion percentage with 2 shots on target, 5 tackles and 3 interceptions. The problem is that anyone who watched that game and also watched either of our games against Southampton could see that it's hard to compare what he does in that team to what he'd do in our's. Firstly, he'd be asked to sit a lot deeper most of the time. But more importantly, he'd have better players alongside him who would get themselves open better. He'd also be up against teams who would sit deeper and put less pressure on him. It's another of my problems with people's reliance on stats. They don't tell the whole story and they especially ignore the other players in the team and the opposition.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think you need a ton of perspective with which to assess stats and the stats guys would tell you that themselves. It's just one more tool in a manager's arsenal. The Modric point is fair. As for football being unpredictable, obviously I was making the same point that you eventually arrived at. Football is only predictable on the game to game basis, except for when it isn't. Look at Porto's win in 2004 or Greece's win the same year. That's why football supporters love the game. Over a 38 game season, sure you'd expect the top teams to win purely due to resources available. But tomorrow we're going to try and win a game to possibly play Bradford in a final. That's the beauty of this game.

Can i just ask people, are they really bothered about winning this cup? It's not like it's the FA Cup, the final four teams are us, Swansea, Villa and Bradford and at the end of it we're going to have a picture of Rafa Benitez lifting a trophy with our players. Yes I'm aware it's a cup, but this cup has only ever meant something when it's part of something bigger (under Mourinho it was something nice on the way to winning a league) but on it's own, is it really something that noteworthy? Put it like this - if Arsenal won it, wouldn't we all be saying they still haven't won anything for 7 years because it's only the Coca-Cola Cup? I know we should try and win everything we go in for but even if we won this trophy (after beating Bradford??), to me it would still be most memorable for us making our best players play almost 120 minutes against United's reserves before going away to Swansea and drawing 1-1 in the league. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic (can you blame me after this season) but is there anything more to this cup than being something Benitez can show as evidence for why he should keep his job?

Can we move this thread to the Transfer Talk forum - we should really be looking at signing this 'Ramires' guy.

And there's a reason those stats guys aren't the manager, but are simply a tool at the manager's disposal. I'm not saying stats don't have their place, but they need to be interpreted properly and not just relied on because they're 'objective'. The point is football is unpredictable and no matter the sample size, you have to actually see what happens on the pitch to understand it. You can't simply rely blindly on stats. Earlier on you suggested that Ramires is weak at passing, and I don't disagree. But you cited his assists as an example of that. Now look at Luka Modric who had just 3 assists in one season (2010-11 I believe) - does that make him a weak passer? No. In fact he was key to most of their attacking endeavours but he would play the ball that unlocked teams so that an assist could be made. Stats are great and I'm a big fan of their use, but they are a tool. De Bruyne may well have bad stats when it comes to tackling but that doesn't mean he's a bad tackler.

Again, I disagree. Each tackle is unique and you would need to look at each one to see what is actually causing the tackle to be unsuccessful. Is it his technique, is it his positioning, is it his position on the field or are the external factors playing a part. Like I said, you can use the statistics as a starting point to alert you to something but you can't just look at them on their own and decide he's a 'very weak' tackler. That's simply not how the game of football works. If it was, why would we bother? As for the goals scored point, I was referring to the type of goals scored and the opposition they were scored against. A player who scored the 4th and 5th goals in routs against weak opposition may not be as good a goalscorer as the guy who scores the only goal against strong opposition. Stats have their place, but it's nowhere near as prominent as some people on here make out.

I find the comments on his range of passing to be boring. I've never really had a problem with his passing because he generally just lays it off to people who can do the exciting stuff better. My problem has always been the stuff that doesn't have a metric on whoscored.com. The intangibles, the amount of shit he gives on the pitch and the effect he has on those around him. I watched Fellaini play in a deeper position than he has done in a while last night and he just seems to be more of what I want in that position than Mikel. He can do the same short passes but he also works harder and asserts himself on the game better. That type of thing is invaluable in lifting those around you. Like I keep saying, I've never known a player so divide fans and I think it's along the lines of people who are impressed by his passing completion stats, and people who actually watch the games week-in and week-out and put more stock in what they see on the pitch.

I don't know if he's that much better than Bertrand right now, but he's about 6 years younger and shows a composure on the ball that Ryan has simply never had. I'd personally bring him in this summer and let him learn from Ashley, and they'd get about 30-odd games a season each. Plus he's a Chelsea fan which is always nice.

Whilst I agree with some of the other points you make, I strongly disagree with this point based on using this website. My view on statistics is that they might occasionally provide you with a starting point when examining an aspect of a player's game, or maybe help you clarify something. But too many people place too much stock in them without fully understanding them and that goes right from tackles made (not all tackles are equal and the tackle itself might result in the opposition winning back the ball etc.) up to goals scored.

So you're essentially agreeing with my earlier point that statistics and videos don't tell the whole story. It's the problem with certain modern-day fans - they rely on statistics without necessarily understanding them. The tackle statistic for example isn't just a number. It's maybe dozens of individual acts that essentially have one of two outcomes (tackle made/not made). But each of those individual acts is a complex series of acts that tell their own story. In De Bruyne's case, he may have a low tackling percentage but he may only need small adjustments to his game to make him a more effective player. But there's no statistic on whoscored.com that tells you that.

Actually that's not strictly the case. You're restricted by the director's choices. When you see a player in person you can watch everything he does, the way he moves around the pitch and even his body language. It's why scouts are invaluable to clubs. So you don't end up with another Bebe.

Well Gibbs plays there pretty much week in and week out and doesn't get raved about on here. Personally I think that's because he's not that good. Whilst I love Bertrand, he's simply not kicked on and if we're being honest he didn't look as good when he was 17 as Shaw does now. The kid just has a composure that you don't often see in players that age, and especially not in the Premier League.

Because statistics don't tell the whole story. They need interpretation, which is why they're helpful to interpret what you see on the pitch but aren't a good substitute for that. It's why some of us still like to watch the matches.

Or for people who don't want to read all that, here's Ruprecht's speech in video form.