I didn't say the defence was never at fault for any goals, but that over the course of the season the stats show that the goal was better protected by the defence than it was by 17 other teams. I didn't mention 'mitigating circumstances like our porous defence' - this is what my post was about Evers, the stats actually show the defence wasn't anywhere near as 'porous' as what the goals against column would suggest.
I think stats are great to have and a necessary tool for any Football manager. Your stats or at least those which you basically manipulate to suit your personal views on Cornell are by their very nature often entirely subjective and used by pundits to illustrate their POV. Unlike you I saw enough of Cornell to realize he was a relatively modest keeper; by no means the best in the Division (2). Unfortunately for you the current Manager played him 46 times last season which at least shows he commanded the respect of KC. Furthermore the Players voted Cornell their player of the season; so you rubbish KC's judgement and his team mates for voting for him. Could have easily been Pierre. You also make the cardinal error of relying on video's which often give very little back ground to most goals scored. Drilling is quite right to point out that many of the goals against(us) were caused by lack of concentration and poor ball retention in our defensive third (or worse in midfield). At least 50% of those on here do not agree with you and certainly the silent majority say he is ok for the task in hand. If you are going to debate a players ability always produce a few positives to give your subject more credence.
As an after thought on the two currnet keepers both look reasonably competent and would not be surprised if the ex Shrews guy gets the nod; especially if Cornell has been the subject of Transfer interest. If he did sign for a Chamionship side you would rubbish that because thats not on your agenda.
Some Managers are able to pick out decent players where the stats are not apparently in the players favour.