Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Let’s be honest - slicing the ball into your own net after 8 minutes was not the ideal start. Farke’s references in his post-match interview to injured players coming back probably tells you that Hanley won’t be in the starting line up once Klose or Zimmerman are fit.

Edited by Grando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've left some comments but haven't given my ratings yet, so here goes. I'll use the Italian ratings system as they take their ratings very seriously and have a universal system, so some of these ratings will appear harsh on the surface, but here goes:

Krul 6.5: OK, he conceded four, but he wasn't at fault for any of them. He made a few good saves and seemed to give confidence to his back four.

Aarons 5.0: I'll get criticised for this, but he was at least partly responsible for two goals. I know he's 19, he was making his Premier League debut, it was away Anfield and he's one of the brightest talents our academy has ever produced, but I'll still be harsh on him. Origi was completely unmarked for the fourth goal and although I'm not 100% sure whether it was Aarons or Hanley who lost him as nobody really had him in the first place, Origi should've been Aarons' man. Also, he maybe could've done better to cut out the cross for Liverpool's first. He looked decent going forward and grew as the game went on, but a defender, first and foremost, he needs to do better in stopping the opposition scoring.

Hanley 4.0: Not a good day. The own goal was unlucky, but also a result of being cumbersome with questionable technique. It seemed to epitomise his evening as he was exposed more than anyone else in defence I feel. I can't see him playing much more this season when the other centre backs are all fit.

Godfrey 6.0: The best of our defenders. He is already showing maturity beyond his years in the way takes charge of situations and the way he plays out with unflappable confidence, but he still had a couple of hairy moments and ultimately was part of a defence that conceded four. It does look like he has cemented his place as the number one centre back though.

Lewis 5.5: I'm not sure if he was supposed to be responsible for picking up van Dijk for Liverpool's third, but he ended up as the man challenging him and didn't put up much of s fight. Despite this, he generally looked decent on the ball and, like Aarons, grew into the game.

Trybull 5.5: His main job is to protect the defence and he didn't really do a great job, but the mitigating factor is the quality of the opposition. If he plays next week, he needs to step up as he has very strong competition now.

McLean 5.5: Not his greatest night. In that position as a deep-lying playmaker he needs to be more creative, even with Liverpool's 'gegenpress' all over him. He worked hard, as always, but he too needs to raise his game with Leitner knocking hard at the door and Vrancic waiting in the wings.

Buendia 6.5: Arguably the quietest of the front four in the first half, but certainly our most dangerous weapon in the second. Great assist for the goal and showed numerous examples of his quick feet and incisive passing. He will be our key man this season and possibly the difference between staying up and going down. 

Stiepermann 5.5: He was involved in a lot of attacks in the first half, but wasted a couple of presentable openings by blazing high and/or wide. If either of those had gone in then the game could've been very different. Still a useful player to have in that role, but he isn't untouchable, although he has enough credit in the bank to keep his place for now.

Cantwell 5.5: Showed some glimpses of his quality with deft flicks and neat passes, but did lose possession a little too easily at times. Doesn't necessarily deserve to lose his place on this performance, but the competition for a place in this area is strong and being 'alright' may not be enough.

Pukki 6.5: Lively as always with exceptional movement. He got in behind the defence on a few occasions and took his goal very well. A positive start and he should continue to score goals based on last night's performance.

Subs:

Leitner 6.5: Changed the game when he came on. We were being overwhelmed at the time, but we picked up and started playing very well after his introduction; keeping the ball better and creating chances. I think he did enough to get a start next week.

Hernandez 6.0: Looked lively as usual and always looked to put the full back under pressure. Not a huge amount came off for him, but you can see that he worries defences, particularly when they're tired. He'll be a decent weapon this season, whether as a starter or an impact sub, as he offers something different.

Drmic N/A: No time or opportunity to make an impression. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally Wacky, some more realistic ratings. For all the improvement in the second half (which I loved) you can't be giving 8s and 9s to players in any team that loses 4-1 - give yourselves somewhere to go when we win, people! 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎09‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 23:10, Six Pack said:

hepphep - please explain your rating for Godfrey ?

No way did Godfrey deserve a 10 bad marking on one goal and whoever in the defence  decided Lewis was to mark Virgil Van Dijk at corners when he is so lethal

Edited by daly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ramrod said:

Kenny had a bit of a mayor. 

How long have you been saving that one up? 😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

Leitner the best of the 3 subs and made me wish we'd had him from the start instead of McLean, with Drmic barely getting a touch, but some good play from Onel in his short time on.

Difficult to criticise Farke because he almost always seems to get it right but both at the back end of last season and then yesterday it completely baffles me that McLean starts ahead of Leitner.

Kenny had some good moments while Leitner was recovering from injury but when both are fit it is really no contest (IMO) - Leitner every time. for me.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krul did make the one error lost control in first half but not punished.  First half Lewis looked our best player, second definitely Godfrey.  Leitner needs to play every week when fit.  At least Hanley didn't get sent off terrible attempt to clear for og.  Any news on Zimmermann must be 4 weeks since op badly need him asap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would mostly agree with Wacky’s ratings and comments.

I think most of the Liverpool players would only be getting 8 or 9 - especially in the second half I don’t think they were at full throttle. I have little doubt they could have upped things and got another couple in the second half had they needed to. That being the case, 7s would be generous for any of our players. 

Positives to be taken yes, but a bit of a reality check defensively as well - if we defend like that then even against weaker sides we’ll need to score 2 or 3 to pick up any points. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ramrod said:

Kenny had a bit of a mayor. 

How long have you been saving that one up? 😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo, Mo leitner is essential to our possession based game. I understand why DF played Kenny and Tom , KM is decent in the air and TT was our only real option in that position for this game. However, if Amadou is the  DM specialist that we all are hoping, then I wouldnt be surprised to see a formation change from 4231 to 4141, Amadou as the 1 charged with protection of the defence, leaving two other mids( Mario and Mo ideally)  to interchange with each other as attack/ defence situations arise. This, I believe would be a more solid and perhaps even more creative way of setting up. A midfield 3 would have evened up the odds a bit v Liverpool as they have three in there, so it was always going to be tough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On ‎10‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 12:12, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I've left some comments but haven't given my ratings yet, so here goes. I'll use the Italian ratings system as they take their ratings very seriously and have a universal system, so some of these ratings will appear harsh on the surface, but here goes:

…...

Drmic N/A: No time or opportunity to make an impression. 

 

On ‎10‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 12:18, Fuzzar said:

Finally Wacky, some more realistic ratings. For all the improvement in the second half (which I loved) you can't be giving 8s and 9s to players in any team that loses 4-1 - give yourselves somewhere to go when we win, people! 

I have to disagree with these ratings Wacky – although I am not familiar with Italian style ratings, what is the logic behind them? IMO, they do come across as a bit harsh to me. I don’t think you have given enough consideration to the quality of the opposition; Liverpool are unbeaten in 41 at Anfield and only dropped points twice there in the whole of last season – once versus Man City!

I’m not an advocate of giving everyone 8s or 9s by any stretch – other than Krul who absolute deserves at the least an 8.5 in my book. Wacky even said so himself – he couldn’t do anything about any of the goals and made some good saves – it was a faultless performance other than a couple of wayward kicks (his kicking was generally very good though), so why only a 6.5?

In addition, the result is not always a correct reflection of how our team has played – often the outcome of the match is skewed and seemingly ‘unlucky’, this skew is why we love football, but doesn’t mean we should take away from our players when on the receiving end.

This issue appears to be confused in all the comments saying how much better we played in the second half. Did we actually play that much better? In my book, we created roughly as much chances, and conceded just as many chances as we did in the first half. I will admit that we were able to apply more pressure in the lead up to our goal, but how much of this can be attributed to Liverpool taking their foot off the gas? I also felt we were sloppier in possession more so in the second half than the first; Godfrey, Cantwell and McLean were all guilty of giving up the ball easily in really dangerous areas – something we did not do in the first half. The only difference in the halves was Liverpool’s failure to capitalise in the second (they hit the bar, Firminho missed an open goal, Salah’s chance which should’ve been a goal), if any of those chances went in then we would also be berating the mistakes that led to those chances / goals. But because Liverpool didn’t convert the players are let off the hook.

Conversely, I think that, all things considered, we actually played well in BOTH halves. This was pretty much as well as we could expect to perform in what will probably be our second most difficult fixture of the season (ignoring Hanley’s freakish mistake). In terms of our offensive work, we created the most shots of any team at Anfield in the past 18 months. Some of our approach play and passing interchanges were a joy to watch and have been well appreciated in the media. I’d argue we put together some of the nicest free-flowing passing moves of the match – we just couldn’t find the finishes to boot. Yet Wacky has rated our attacking midfielders as 5.5, 5.5 and 6.5. I’m confused – why so low? Again – apologies if I am just completely misunderstanding the Italian ratings system.

For what its worth here are mine

Krul – 8.5 (MOTM) – As described above, played an essential role in playing out from the back in the first half, looked assured whenever called upon and topped it off with some fantastic saves in the second half. At no fault for any of the goals.

Lewis – 6.5 – I thought he looked stronger and quicker than I’ve seen him before, always reliable in possession, made some great runs forwards although these moments were fleeting. Can’t be blamed too much for the goals (not sure why he was marking VVD).

Godfrey – 7.5 – Definitely our best defender. Made some great last ditch tackles, blocks and headers, always dynamic and positive on the ball. But also guilty of dallying too long in possession and giving it up at times.

Hanley – 5 – Awful but unfortunate mistake for the goal, must’ve got to him a lot, looked a step off the pace defensively but actually didn’t do too badly with possession considering his lack of match sharpness / the occasion / his error. Played how we can expect our 4th choice CB to play I think (not the howler..).

Aarons – 6 – Had a slow start and looked overwhelmed at times, and possibly at fault for the 4th goal, but was often left with two men to deal with by Buendia so unsurprising he didn't have his best game. I thought he grew into the game second half – particular highlight was skinning Mane!

McLean – 5.5 – Showed some sharpness in possession in the first half and linked up well with Lewis / Cantwell at times. Overran by Liverpool’s brute force and numbers in the middle. Took too long in possession in the second half and has a tendency of diving in unnecessarily.

Trybull – 6 – Pretty similar to McLean, but I think he was more involved with our possession work from the back and also snappier / stronger in the tackle. As a DM he needs to learn when to dive in and when to drop off, too many times he jumped in to a 40/60 tackle and left our defence exposed.

Cantwell – 7.5 – Very impressed. Looks a different player this season, always sharp and strong on the ball. Was at the heart of all our good play in the first half and deserves to keep his place for Newcastle 100% - wasn’t quite as involved 2nd half but still put in a shift. He is going to be a surprise package for us!

Stiepermann – 6.5 – Not his best game, got into good positions but should’ve done better with the opportunities given to him. We didn’t appear as reliant on him as usual for his hold up play, I felt Cantwell was our biggest threat in the first in terms of this, and Buendia / Leitner in the second.

Buendia – 7 – Poor first half, but got stronger when the game went on and when we had a bit more space and time in the second half. Good assist for Pukki, I think there is lot’s more to come from Buendia yet though. Also – I wish he would cut out the sulking every time he loses possession, Farke cannot approve of this? He needs to learn to convert his sulking energy into tracking his man energy because it may one day cost us in this league.

Pukki – 7.5 – So lively, looked a real threat, was not in the game for long periods understandably but he made the most of every opportunity he was given and capped it off with the goal.

Leitner – 7.5 – Made a real case for starting in the next game, knitted together the whole team which led to some of the best patches of play in the second half.

Hernandez 6 – Didn’t’ have too long to make an impact but pretty quiet when he came on, he did look a threat when he eventually got the ball and I’m sure we’ll be seeing lots more of him this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

 

 

I have to disagree with these ratings Wacky – although I am not familiar with Italian style ratings, what is the logic behind them? IMO, they do come across as a bit harsh to me. I don’t think you have given enough consideration to the quality of the opposition; Liverpool are unbeaten in 41 at Anfield and only dropped points twice there in the whole of last season – once versus Man City!

I’m not an advocate of giving everyone 8s or 9s by any stretch – other than Krul who absolute deserves at the least an 8.5 in my book. Wacky even said so himself – he couldn’t do anything about any of the goals and made some good saves – it was a faultless performance other than a couple of wayward kicks (his kicking was generally very good though), so why only a 6.5?

In addition, the result is not always a correct reflection of how our team has played – often the outcome of the match is skewed and seemingly ‘unlucky’, this skew is why we love football, but doesn’t mean we should take away from our players when on the receiving end.

This issue appears to be confused in all the comments saying how much better we played in the second half. Did we actually play that much better? In my book, we created roughly as much chances, and conceded just as many chances as we did in the first half. I will admit that we were able to apply more pressure in the lead up to our goal, but how much of this can be attributed to Liverpool taking their foot off the gas? I also felt we were sloppier in possession more so in the second half than the first; Godfrey, Cantwell and McLean were all guilty of giving up the ball easily in really dangerous areas – something we did not do in the first half. The only difference in the halves was Liverpool’s failure to capitalise in the second (they hit the bar, Firminho missed an open goal, Salah’s chance which should’ve been a goal), if any of those chances went in then we would also be berating the mistakes that led to those chances / goals. But because Liverpool didn’t convert the players are let off the hook.

Conversely, I think that, all things considered, we actually played well in BOTH halves. This was pretty much as well as we could expect to perform in what will probably be our second most difficult fixture of the season (ignoring Hanley’s freakish mistake). In terms of our offensive work, we created the most shots of any team at Anfield in the past 18 months. Some of our approach play and passing interchanges were a joy to watch and have been well appreciated in the media. I’d argue we put together some of the nicest free-flowing passing moves of the match – we just couldn’t find the finishes to boot. Yet Wacky has rated our attacking midfielders as 5.5, 5.5 and 6.5. I’m confused – why so low? Again – apologies if I am just completely misunderstanding the Italian ratings system.

For what its worth here are mine

Krul – 8.5 (MOTM) – As described above, played an essential role in playing out from the back in the first half, looked assured whenever called upon and topped it off with some fantastic saves in the second half. At no fault for any of the goals.

Lewis – 6.5 – I thought he looked stronger and quicker than I’ve seen him before, always reliable in possession, made some great runs forwards although these moments were fleeting. Can’t be blamed too much for the goals (not sure why he was marking VVD).

Godfrey – 7.5 – Definitely our best defender. Made some great last ditch tackles, blocks and headers, always dynamic and positive on the ball. But also guilty of dallying too long in possession and giving it up at times.

Hanley – 5 – Awful but unfortunate mistake for the goal, must’ve got to him a lot, looked a step off the pace defensively but actually didn’t do too badly with possession considering his lack of match sharpness / the occasion / his error. Played how we can expect our 4th choice CB to play I think (not the howler..).

Aarons – 6 – Had a slow start and looked overwhelmed at times, and possibly at fault for the 4th goal, but was often left with two men to deal with by Buendia so unsurprising he didn't have his best game. I thought he grew into the game second half – particular highlight was skinning Mane!

McLean – 5.5 – Showed some sharpness in possession in the first half and linked up well with Lewis / Cantwell at times. Overran by Liverpool’s brute force and numbers in the middle. Took too long in possession in the second half and has a tendency of diving in unnecessarily.

Trybull – 6 – Pretty similar to McLean, but I think he was more involved with our possession work from the back and also snappier / stronger in the tackle. As a DM he needs to learn when to dive in and when to drop off, too many times he jumped in to a 40/60 tackle and left our defence exposed.

Cantwell – 7.5 – Very impressed. Looks a different player this season, always sharp and strong on the ball. Was at the heart of all our good play in the first half and deserves to keep his place for Newcastle 100% - wasn’t quite as involved 2nd half but still put in a shift. He is going to be a surprise package for us!

Stiepermann – 6.5 – Not his best game, got into good positions but should’ve done better with the opportunities given to him. We didn’t appear as reliant on him as usual for his hold up play, I felt Cantwell was our biggest threat in the first in terms of this, and Buendia / Leitner in the second.

Buendia – 7 – Poor first half, but got stronger when the game went on and when we had a bit more space and time in the second half. Good assist for Pukki, I think there is lot’s more to come from Buendia yet though. Also – I wish he would cut out the sulking every time he loses possession, Farke cannot approve of this? He needs to learn to convert his sulking energy into tracking his man energy because it may one day cost us in this league.

Pukki – 7.5 – So lively, looked a real threat, was not in the game for long periods understandably but he made the most of every opportunity he was given and capped it off with the goal.

Leitner – 7.5 – Made a real case for starting in the next game, knitted together the whole team which led to some of the best patches of play in the second half.

Hernandez 6 – Didn’t’ have too long to make an impact but pretty quiet when he came on, he did look a threat when he eventually got the ball and I’m sure we’ll be seeing lots more of him this season.

Generally, in a nutshell, the Italian system uses 6 as an average. 5 is a poor game, 7 is a good game, 4 is very poor and 8 is excellent. It's rare to see a mark outside these parameters. Goals and assists see a little boost, and errors for goals will see a hit (hence Aarons), as will a 4-1 defeat. As I said, they take the 'pagelle' quite seriously and all media outlets are pretty much in sync with the system.

I didn't really take into account the strength of the opposition, because ultimately a game of football is a game of football.

As for your comments, I only gave Krul a 6.5 because ultimately he conceded four. None were his errors, but it isn't like they were all unsaveable. He had a decent game, but let's not go mad.

Cantwell only got a 5.5 because he didn't really possess a goal threat and I can't remember him creating a clear chance (although the game was three days ago now). He also lost possession cheaply at times. Stiepermann only got a 5.5 mainly because of the two wasted chances in the first half.

Did we perform better in the second half? Considering we conceded four in the first half without reply, there's absolutely no doubt that we did. When you lose one half 4-0 and win the other 1-0, there has to be a large discrepancy, mainly not making mistakes at the back. 

Anyway, I think we're on a similar wavelength with the marks, in proportion. It's just that yours are a generally a point or so higher, so you used a slightly higher average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Generally, in a nutshell, the Italian system uses 6 as an average. 5 is a poor game, 7 is a good game, 4 is very poor and 8 is excellent. It's rare to see a mark outside these parameters. Goals and assists see a little boost, and errors for goals will see a hit (hence Aarons), as will a 4-1 defeat. As I said, they take the 'pagelle' quite seriously and all media outlets are pretty much in sync with the system.

I didn't really take into account the strength of the opposition, because ultimately a game of football is a game of football.

As for your comments, I only gave Krul a 6.5 because ultimately he conceded four. None were his errors, but it isn't like they were all unsaveable. He had a decent game, but let's not go mad.

Cantwell only got a 5.5 because he didn't really possess a goal threat and I can't remember him creating a clear chance (although the game was three days ago now). He also lost possession cheaply at times. Stiepermann only got a 5.5 mainly because of the two wasted chances in the first half.

Did we perform better in the second half? Considering we conceded four in the first half without reply, there's absolutely no doubt that we did. When you lose one half 4-0 and win the other 1-0, there has to be a large discrepancy, mainly not making mistakes at the back. 

Anyway, I think we're on a similar wavelength with the marks, in proportion. It's just that yours are a generally a point or so higher, so you used a slightly higher average.

Thanks for that Wacky, not actually too dissimilar to how I would rate (6 being average seems to be the norm) so I did not use a higher average - and do still feel you were a bit harsh on our attacking midfielders / Krul. I'd recommend watching the Youtube highlights put up by the club for some more of Cantwell's good work. Certainly would not rate him anywhere near below average! It also sounds like you have marked Krul down just because he conceded four, which I don't think is particularly fair - I think if he managed to save any of those goals it would've been quite miraculous. His performance to me felt better than anything he came up with last season and I really feel he's turned a mental corner in terms of his own self confidence.  

 

4 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Did we perform better in the second half? Considering we conceded four in the first half without reply, there's absolutely no doubt that we did. When you lose one half 4-0 and win the other 1-0, there has to be a large discrepancy, mainly not making mistakes at the back.

Perhaps you missed my paragraph about this in my original comment. To me there is a clear difference between performance and result. You can play well and lose badly, and by the same coin - play badly and win well.

I think our second half performance can be attributed more to Liverpool taking it down a gear or two than us playing significantly better, they played at 100 miles an hour in the first half and made it really difficult for us to play out from the back - despite this, we still managed to carve out a number of good chances. I also felt we pretty much made as many mistakes in the second half as the first - more notably so when in possession with the errors I noted in my previous post. I think the mistakes in the first half are made to look glaring simply because Liverpool scored from them (I also don't know how you can legislate for whatever Hanley did for the first goal), if you re-watch the highlights maybe you will see what I mean.

Imagine the opposite game in terms of Liverpool taking their chances. I.e. ignore Hanley's OG (that isn't how the team performed overall), and say the 3 other goals all went straight at Krul or wide. And instead, in the second half Henderson slotted past Krul, Firminho scored his tap in, Salah bagged his chance after Cantwell / Godfrey got dispossessed and TAA's freekick went in. Would we then have played really well first half but had a stinker in the second? If all of the second half Liverpool chances had gone in instead of the first half ones would we not be making the same criticisms but in reverse?

It appears the difference is whether Liverpool manage to capitalise or not and that to me isn't really something we should be considering when we're talking about our own performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at some of these player ratings you'd think we won the game 4-1!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×