Will

I agree on the clean sheets and goals conceded (I think Lumley had 13 clean sheets, so it certainly isn't the be all and end all). They were easy to hand though and I'm lazy.

Do they? He had 15 clean sheets and only conceded 33 goals. The only stat that says he had a bad season is the one you want to believe means something in volume of saves made, which is a dreadful measure of how good a goalkeeper is. I'll give you an example to try and illustrate my point: If goalkeeper X faces 200 shots and saves 50% of them he'd have 100 saves for the season. If goalkeeper Y only faces 100 shots and saves 80% of them he'd have 80 saves for the season. By your logic goalkeeper X has had the better season, despite letting in significantly more of the shots

I am saying he is good because I've seen him play plenty and he is good, and set to get a move to the Premier League off the back of being good..

Is Sam Johnstone better than Joe Lumley? Is this a serious question?

Is it? A goalkeeper can be terrible and still have a very high volume of saves, a goalkeeper can also be brilliant and have a lower number of saves. It literally doesn't tell us anything. Save % would be better, but still doesn't tell the whole story as @Neverbefore has said. The best measure I've seen is goals prevented, which is expected goals against minus actual goals against. Of goalkeepers who had more than 30 appearances, Sam Johnstone had by a long way the fewest saves in the league, does that make him the worst keeper in the league? Just to circle back to save %, he also had a wo

Volume of saves is not a good way to measure if a goalkeeper is good.

Literally nowhere.

Yes, I believe Lumleys number last season was -6 from memory. Steffen's was -1.1 during his loan spell in Germany.

In relation to which part? Underperforming his xG against?

Is volume of saves really a good metric of a quality keeper? I know it sounds like I'm being really negative about it, I'm not trying to be I'm just interested in what he's done well and what he'll bring to us. He underperformed his xG against during his time in Germany, not by much but he did, so regardless of how poor the team was or how many saves he made, he made fewer saves than expected statistically.

Was he? He underperformed his xG against whilst there and conceded more than 2 goals per game on average. After he left his team continued to concede roughly the same amount of goals per game (actually slight fewer but we'll call that noise), so I'm a bit puzzled what it is that he was rated for?

That wasn't directed to you in particular, just some of the reaction I've seen on here and elsewhere.

That's a fair point, I guess I just can't get on board with thinking it's a great signing simply because he's coming from a great team. Not saying it's a bad signing, just the jury is out for me.

His decisions brought us Balogun and Connolly, so there's two reasons not to just blindly trust his judgement.

The graph covers time before he joined Man City, a total of just over 7,500 minutes of football. This includes 1.5 seasons in the MLS as well as half a season in Germany where he managed to concede more than 2 goals a game on average. Does it mean he'll be bad? Of course not. Does it make me question if he's as good as everyone's initial reaction would suggest? Yes.