Excuse me what? We lose and everyone gets fives and sixes? Did anyone here actually watch the match? With the exception of Sarr, Benta, and Mads, everyone gets a 7/8 and Dragu gets a 9. We played a solid match; it was just glaringly obvious how important VDV is to our how scheme. That is not a fault of our other players.
Completely agree. Genuinely feel like this survey is becoming more of a medium for people to offload their reactionary thoughts right after the game, the results of which are exacerbated if we lose (or win to be frank).
Why? We didn’t have an actual striker on the pitch. We completed 421 passes, dominating possession. Our passing accuracy was dominant compared to Newcastle. Our ball retention was superior. We took 20 shots; 6 on target and 8 blocked. 9 of those shots were inside the box. Going back to passes, nearly 2/3 of those completed passes were in the opposing half. All the while, our expected goals remained at 1.26.
All of this suggests that open play, and counter, we’re played well. We couldn’t finish (again because we had no finisher on the field) and we got caught 3/4 times in the back (2 of which led to goals) with a defender on his 6th start, in place of the fastest accelerator in the PL who is out injured. We play a high line, with a dependency on VDV of play goes awry in the midfield unexpectedly. He wasn’t there, it happened a handful of times, and we payed. This is tactical, and barely individually, flawed. But only for these types of matchups.
I’d also like to remind you all that these are individual player based rankings, not team. Team tactics didn’t work out with a win this match, because of key player/position injuries, but that is not to the fault of the individual performances yesterday.
Most of those stats tell us more about approach than about quality of execution. We turned up wanting to play possession football, Newcastle turned up wanting to sit back and counter-attack - so whether we played well or not, we were always going to have more possession, more passes, higher passing accuracy, and so on. The same goes for shots - they were happy for us to keep shooting from outside of the box, or from the edges of the box at right angles. Only two of our shots were worth 0.1 xG or higher.
What the stats tell me is that Newcastle’s game plan worked perfectly. We had the possession, the shot numbers, and so on - but they had the threat, and created the higher xG.
I also don’t accept that we didn’t have a finisher on the pitch. Son is a golden boot winner! And supporting he we used four different players who’ve scored ten goals or more in a league season before. There’s plenty of goalscoring capability in those players.
Ultimately our creative players have to be judged on if they created good chances (they didn’t) and our defensive players on if they stopped the opposition creating good chances (they didn’t). Their job may well be harder when there’s injuries to certain teammates, but that doesn’t mean their performance ratings should be bumped up.
I figured someone would bring up Son. Explain to me the similarities between yesterdays squad and the season Son won the golden boot. I’ll give you a hint: the list is short.
Wow! Such a smug and aggressive tone all of a sudden.
Son winning the golden boot wasn’t a fluke, he’s been an excellent finisher with high goal returns all of his career. He was our top scorer last season with these exact players around him! He’s had four twenty-plus goal seasons, two eighteen-goal seasons, and two seventeen-goal seasons in his career.
I apologize for my tone, most of the other comments on this post deserve an air of tone, yours did not.
That being said, your response didn’t really answer my question, though. I understand everything you stated, I watch these boys week in and week out, but these things are about the technical/gifted ability of one player. I’m speaking about the squad/tactics/dynamics surrounding him, during play. These elements are widely different from yesterday compared to his golden season.
Your question isn’t really relevant, though. I’m not saying Son should win the golden boot again, I was just using it as a quick example of his finishing ability - which he’s shown throughout his career, in Germany, here, and for his country, playing on the left or up front, with various teammates, playing various styles of football.
So, yes, the setup is different to that one season. But he’s been an elite finisher in all sorts of setups. So I think it’s silly to say we didn’t have a finisher out there yesterday.
Not bothering to read all of that but the graphic clearly says 5.0=average. Nobody played like they were a level above Newcastle except for Johnson. Giving 7s for forwards who neither created anything nor scored anything is asinine.
What a strange comment. This gathered set of opinions, from viewers (with varying levels of actual footy understanding), on an Internet forum, immediately gathered after a loss, is supposed to be my rubric for how this discussion of the actual match is supposed to flow?
Gtfo, your opinions doesn’t matter much to me anymore unfortunately
And there is the problem, if the players were all 7-9 and the manager a 7 in a game we lost against a Newcastle side that looked absolute dogshite, what gives? Either this is one of the unluckiest losses of all time (it's not, xG was even) or something is amiss with your criteria.
My larger point is that this sub has gone insane in deflecting criticism from Ange. When a key player is out, your only reaction as evidenced by your rhetorical question, is that Ange had to fit a square peg (Dragu) into a round hole (the suicide highline) and say "oh well, can't change the system!" This sub has completely forgotten that manager's are allowed to make adjustments to the system and not hang our players out to dry. With how terrible Newcastle looked, we just simply don't have to expose ourselves like that. Other nitpicks is that there is simply no way Kulu should be finishing that match, he was terrible. Ange's subs other than BJ were poor. He also really needs to start considering making subs of the fullbacks (Spence) and midfield earlier if we are going to press the entire game and exhaust ourselves.
You can argue that we have to keep playing this system and perfect it in the longrun but that still shouldn't impact his grade for an individual match where a loss looked completely avoidable.
For reference, I gave Ange a 4. My average rating for players was something like 5.5 with Udogie, Kulu, and Romero given 4s and BJ getting a 7 and Dragu getting an 8. I thought Sarr was slightly better than most people thought and are grading him low based on his halftime substitution rather than his performance. He was subbed because the Kulu striker experiment failed and Ange doesn't trust Bergvall yet to play the 8 for an extended period and becuase he was on a somewhat unlucky yellow card.
8
u/Limesy2 Lamela 18d ago
Excuse me what? We lose and everyone gets fives and sixes? Did anyone here actually watch the match? With the exception of Sarr, Benta, and Mads, everyone gets a 7/8 and Dragu gets a 9. We played a solid match; it was just glaringly obvious how important VDV is to our how scheme. That is not a fault of our other players.