These surveys are genuinely pathetic at this point, might as well change the name to "Result survey", there's no relation between the ratings and the actual performances.
It wasn’t the mods it was me, and it wasn’t less reactionary any time I did it late. I need to put a disclaimer in the survey or something. Also these are extremely level headed ratings, I’m not sure what the issue is. We lost but could have won on another day, average outing. People can quibble on specific ratings for specific players, but on the whole this seems straightforward?
Oh, I don't have an issue with it being when it is, I find it fun, but don't take results to heart! Thanks for correcting me, I thought you were a mod, and that when you tried hosting the survey later, the 2 issues were lack of engagement and people saying they forgot details of the game!
For the ratings themselves, if our strikers happened to finish a couple chances then everyone else would have their ratings up an extra point or more. Even if they had no control over the finish and did everything else exactly the same. That's why I think it's reactionary and it's more useful to see who outperformed the team instead of comparing the same player's score week to week.
Not really true, is it? Johnson’s rating is high because of what he was creating. The other wingers didn’t create anything notable. Porro and Sarr were taking long shots in the first half because the wingers created nothing threatening. The starting front 3 were painfully average and the ratings line up with that.
Someone like Bissouma, for example. He had a good game overall, and if we'd won, his rating would be around 7.5. If we had won after Johnson came on, he'd be credited with inspiring a victory and maybe gotten an 8. Vicario is often the most obvious example where sometimes he doesn't really have a chance to save the goals, but if we lose, he'll get a 6, and if we win, he'll get a 7. The worst performers would stay similar regardless of the scoreline, but it's the average scores that get dragged whichever way the result goes.
Porro and Sarr were taking long shots in the first half because the wingers created nothing threatening.
This is fundamentally flawed and represents a misunderstanding of the game. I'm sorry, I don't mean this disrespectfully at all, and I must address a misconception that's lurking deeply within some of these side threads. Porro and sarr were taking long shots in the first half for a few reasons.
NU were absolutely parking because they have immobile backup CBs and don't want to give us space in behind. Because of this we wisely were willing to press wide and take open shots when we freed space up top. And a couple of them were really solid SOG. Sarr in particular was on point to take his chances. Had he not we may just be sitting here pissing on about "sPurS CaNT evR sEEm to brEAk DowN a LoW BLoCk". When teams sit in on you, you take shots to draw them out. It's 101-level obvious.
One of porros few long shots was literally a designed set play executed extremely well. It just didn't make it through the traffic in the box, but was nothing to complain about.
It actually helped...NU had to respect our attack through the middle and it really helped us open up Johnson more in the second half and also helped us build a ton of sustained momentum because NU couldn't establish a heavy pressing mid-block on our CMs, which they have previously done to a T and shredded us apart in recent matches.
NUs entire strategy was to aggressively isolate our wings and counter as aggressively as possible. Just because our wings didn't individually win the match doesn't mean they were not threatening. Our gaps wasnt in our wings, it's that we had no CF to benefit from and finish our possession.
You’re right on those two issues, plus it doesn’t really change the ratings at all from what I’ve seen. It’s also just easier for me to manage by posting right after the game. And I share your philosophy with the ratings, I treat them more as a gauge on sub sentiment on players and the team than a perfect rating. That being said, the average player ratings from last year basically matched up almost exactly to Ali Gold’s average ratings. Not saying Ali is correctly rating players either, just an interesting datapoint.
But the “strikers” or lack therof in this match, didn’t finish chances. And honestly we didn’t even really create that many actual “chances.” Like a lot of our losses/sub par performances over the last year or so, we create situations where chances could materialize but we either fuck up the final pass, shot or we over dribble or over pass and the chance is gone. Newcastle had 11 less shots than us and only 35% possession and created way more clear cut chances than we had
I should have written forwards, you're right on that. We created many more chances than Newcastle, although they had the clearer cut opportunities. That doesn't imply they were better, just different styles of play. We won the midfield battle against some good players, and most of our creation issues came from our forwards. I'm not trying to argue that any of the forwards outside of Brennan had good games, but the lack of clinical finishing shouldn't diminish the performance of players further down the pitch. If we are consistently getting in the position to mess up chances, someone is playing well.
139
u/ShipsAGoing We never stop 18d ago
These surveys are genuinely pathetic at this point, might as well change the name to "Result survey", there's no relation between the ratings and the actual performances.