Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
bf2k
Posts: 1435
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:52 pm
Been Liked: 336 times
Has Liked: 1516 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

Post by bf2k » Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:08 pm

dandeclaret wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:42 pm
Imagine it's you Bf2k - you're playing up front against James Tarkowski or a 10 year old kid - how do you think that would impact your ability to get into the game and influence it? Then take that 11 vs 11 - and as a striker, isloated, or as a midfielder over ran 3 vs 2 against better individual players, vs playing a vets team with no legs. Opposition stop you from doing that stuff, or vs a team of similar ability. If 1 player doesn't do their job, the system fails.

Your argument, extrapolated, would question why you'd pay more for a striker at Real Madrid than at Fleetwood. Cos they can both Collect the ball, hold it up, and bring others into play, and be in good positions - that's why they're professional footballers. So why wouldn't Liverpool sign him, cos he'd be a million times cheaper than the lad they signed from real madrid.
Player ratings should be based on performance. A striker that cost £5m is more than likely going to get 4/10 week in week out if they are playing in the Premier League because that price tag gets you a certain skill set (probably League 1 quality now). They may have the odd game which they play out of there skin that warrants higher regardless of who they are playing. Likewise a player that cost £50m should be scoring 8/10 more or less every game in the Premier League because £50m gets you an outstanding player (well should do depending who the buying club are).

Last night Brady, Brownhill & Wood had OK games, nothing which made me think they were anything more. Therefore, despite the result & how much they cost, on the way they played in that game I thought they were OK and I rated as I saw fit. I thought Brownhill got over run in midfield (my opinion on how I saw the game) so how can I rate him up there with Tarks & Pope when I thought they were outstanding...regardless of who they were up against.

Another example, I didn't get to rate against MK Dons but I thought Norris was a solid 8. He did all that could have been asked of him and was brilliant against int he shootout. But because this was against MK Dons should I only have scored 6?

KateR
Posts: 4138
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

Post by KateR » Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:27 pm

I always post ratings the next day and sometimes after I have watched the game again, end of the day we are all different, we do see see games differently in some areas, some of us have favorites and some/few have a boo boy they simply don't/wont like for whatever reason.

I was jut going to leave it and as I often do just like the posts where I agree, in this case it would be around posts where people stated give them all a 10, because that's what I thought, more on that later.

Looking at the game I would suggest that Wood was no better, no worse than the last few/6 or 7 games so why give him a higher rating, is it because of the rating against the team we played against? For me I would have rated him at a 6, again just an opinion.

The defensive display was a master class, yet this particular group simply can not do the same against Man City, while Liverpool might be off a little we did the same last year in the super draw, for me it's a conundrum as to why we end up with the Man City results, as I feel we have one of the top three defensive units in the PL.

We have the "players Ratings" and we have the "Man of the Match Ratings" yet we don't have a TEAM rating and it really is a team game, while I wouldn't have given certain individuals more than 7 I would definitely have given the TEAM a 10 because that's how they played, people going into the right spaces, contributing, including WOOD.

jojomk1
Posts: 4735
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:20 am
Been Liked: 836 times
Has Liked: 574 times

Re: Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

Post by jojomk1 » Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:35 pm

dandeclaret wrote:
Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:09 pm
You can **** right off with your 5’a and 6’s lads..... you don’t win away at Anfield with players putting in a 5/10 performance. Have a day off.
A great result but still means some true perspective should be put into the ratings

If Brady was so good how come the manager hooked him just after the hour

And that was 20 mins before he normally makes changes, unless people are not playing well

Just asking as I thought he was average at best when compared to most of the other guys

dandeclaret
Posts: 3516
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
Been Liked: 2564 times
Has Liked: 300 times

Re: Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

Post by dandeclaret » Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:56 pm

bf2k wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:08 pm
Player ratings should be based on performance. A striker that cost £5m is more than likely going to get 4/10 week in week out if they are playing in the Premier League because that price tag gets you a certain skill set (probably League 1 quality now). They may have the odd game which they play out of there skin that warrants higher regardless of who they are playing. Likewise a player that cost £50m should be scoring 8/10 more or less every game in the Premier League because £50m gets you an outstanding player (well should do depending who the buying club are).

Last night Brady, Brownhill & Wood had OK games, nothing which made me think they were anything more. Therefore, despite the result & how much they cost, on the way they played in that game I thought they were OK and I rated as I saw fit. I thought Brownhill got over run in midfield (my opinion on how I saw the game) so how can I rate him up there with Tarks & Pope when I thought they were outstanding...regardless of who they were up against.

Another example, I didn't get to rate against MK Dons but I thought Norris was a solid 8. He did all that could have been asked of him and was brilliant against int he shootout. But because this was against MK Dons should I only have scored 6?

That top sentence sets up the point perfectly. Surely you have to assess a player on his ability? He should have the opportunity of getting 10/10 every week playing at the absolute top of his ability?

I'll ask you a couple of questions here - on the ratings list below what score would you give Burnley's 10th place finish last season?
Similarly - using the ratings score below - what would you have awarded Nick Pope and James Tarkowski last season?

10 - Out of this World
9 - Excellent
8 - Very Good
7 -Good
6 - Average
5 - Below Par
4 - Poor
3 - Abysmal

dandeclaret
Posts: 3516
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
Been Liked: 2564 times
Has Liked: 300 times

Re: Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

Post by dandeclaret » Fri Jan 22, 2021 3:03 pm

jojomk1 wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:35 pm
A great result but still means some true perspective should be put into the ratings

If Brady was so good how come the manager hooked him just after the hour

And that was 20 mins before he normally makes changes, unless people are not playing well

Just asking as I thought he was average at best when compared to most of the other guys
Because they worked incredibly hard without the ball, and similar to Manchester United, gaps were appearing where Brady was defensively. People say the manager is stubborn, but when he learns from a situation and changes it, then the player must have performed badly.

JTClaret
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:51 am
Been Liked: 181 times
Has Liked: 119 times

Re: Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

Post by JTClaret » Fri Jan 22, 2021 3:55 pm

Pope: 10 - What more can you want?
Lowton: 8 - Fantastic defending (not higher as he didn't have much opportunity for attacking, not a pop at him at all though)
Tarkowski: 10 - Brilliant
Mee: 8 - Brilliant, but could have cost us
Taylor: 7 - Did very well (but only half a game, not his fault)
Brady: 6 - Poor balls, but worked hard
Brownhill: 8 - Massive presence in the middle
Westwood: 8 - Did what Westwood does, all game
McNeil: 8 - Looking like the McNeil we know and love again. Not much opportunity to get higher, though I could give a 9 for spinning TAA haha)
Barnes: 8 - Did well, great pen and worked hard
Wood: 7 - Not much chance to be any higher, wouldn't be fair to put lower

Pieters: 8 - Did brilliantly. Never lets us down
Gudmundsson: 7 - Similar to McNeil, but worked hard

I feel harsh for 7s and 8s, but it is more due to the chance to affect the attacking side of our game. As a defensive unit, we were incredible.
For what it's worth, being able to get a win at Anfield and not automatically give 10s says more about how good I feel we can be in every area.

superdimitri
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
Been Liked: 1005 times
Has Liked: 725 times

Re: Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

Post by superdimitri » Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:01 am

I'm actually a little bit shocked that some people are rating based on the quality of the opposition or the potential of our players.

It doesn't work that way, a player who is known to be bad can have a very good game against good opposition, likewise a world class player can have a poor game against poor opposition.

What matters is how they perform in the game, not the opposition. I get the great marks after the Liverpool win because it was a great performance. What I don't get is unnecessary high points given to players who really didn't do that well.. And I don't get how people don't give such bad marks when we put in some stinkers against the likes of Manchester City.

To stay in the top league as we have done, we have to accept we should be able to compete reasonably with top opposition. We're not a division 4 team playing in an fa cup final every time we play good opposition. If we beat Fulham the same we beat Liverpool marks should be exactly the same.

dandeclaret
Posts: 3516
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
Been Liked: 2564 times
Has Liked: 300 times

Re: Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

Post by dandeclaret » Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:35 am

superdimitri wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:01 am
I'm actually a little bit shocked that some people are rating based on the quality of the opposition or the potential of our players.

It doesn't work that way, a player who is known to be bad can have a very good game against good opposition, likewise a world class player can have a poor game against poor opposition.

What matters is how they perform in the game, not the opposition. I get the great marks after the Liverpool win because it was a great performance. What I don't get is unnecessary high points given to players who really didn't do that well.. And I don't get how people don't give such bad marks when we put in some stinkers against the likes of Manchester City.

To stay in the top league as we have done, we have to accept we should be able to compete reasonably with top opposition. We're not a division 4 team playing in an fa cup final every time we play good opposition. If we beat Fulham the same we beat Liverpool marks should be exactly the same.

How they perform in the game though is affected by the impact the opposition can have. Scores vs Man City are regularly horrendously low.

As above I'll ask you a couple of questions here - on the ratings list below what score would you give Burnley's 10th place finish last season?
Similarly - using the ratings score below - what would you have awarded Nick Pope and James Tarkowski last season?

10 - Out of this World
9 - Excellent
8 - Very Good
7 -Good
6 - Average
5 - Below Par
4 - Poor
3 - Abysmal

claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 10088
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 4161 times
Has Liked: 57 times

Re: Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:46 am

dandeclaret wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:35 am
How they perform in the game though is affected by the impact the opposition can have. Scores vs Man City are regularly horrendously low.

As above I'll ask you a couple of questions here - on the ratings list below what score would you give Burnley's 10th place finish last season?
Similarly - using the ratings score below - what would you have awarded Nick Pope and James Tarkowski last season?

10 - Out of this World
9 - Excellent
8 - Very Good
7 -Good
6 - Average
5 - Below Par
4 - Poor
3 - Abysmal
Have you tried pi**ing into the wind Dan it’s easier.

Those who spent the first 60 - 70 minutes on the match thread moaning about the players in particular Wood Barnes and Brady and to get them off because “vyds” wasn’t playing or other weird reasons will struggle getting above 5 or 6 ona weekly basis. Hendrick has left they need a new target.
These 2 users liked this post: dandeclaret ClaretTony

Burnley1989
Posts: 7345
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:19 am
Been Liked: 2274 times
Has Liked: 2153 times

Re: Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

Post by Burnley1989 » Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:00 am

Note to self: don’t score players as you see it in future, that’s not the point of the thread.

As if people are actually complaining about how someone else see’s a game, some scores are slightly low in my opinion but I’d never question it, just like I wouldn’t question people who score 10’s

superdimitri
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:04 pm
Been Liked: 1005 times
Has Liked: 725 times

Re: Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

Post by superdimitri » Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:21 pm

dandeclaret wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:35 am
How they perform in the game though is affected by the impact the opposition can have. Scores vs Man City are regularly horrendously low.

As above I'll ask you a couple of questions here - on the ratings list below what score would you give Burnley's 10th place finish last season?
Similarly - using the ratings score below - what would you have awarded Nick Pope and James Tarkowski last season?

10 - Out of this World
9 - Excellent
8 - Very Good
7 -Good
6 - Average
5 - Below Par
4 - Poor
3 - Abysmal
You're asking a completely pointless question, the marks per season are an acclimation of each game rating per player, its got nothing to do with where we sit in the table. We could have players playing out of the world each game and finish lowly, and we could have players playing poorly and finishing highly. There's performances and results, two very different things. Likewise, performances don't always come hand in hand with results.

Its got nothing, and should have nothing to do with the opposition. A player has a stinker against West Brom or Man City it shouldn't matter. Have a great game against Liverpool or Crystal Palace, it shouldn't matter. A poor game is a poor game and a good game is a good game.

If you start to take the opposition into consideration then it just skews playing ratings, you end up marking up players who don't play well just because of the opposition (which will be a regular occurrence given the players they play against in this league).

As I said, the players are expected to perform now, we are an established outfit. We are not little old Burnley any more. They've proved they can have excellent games against top opposition already.

dandeclaret
Posts: 3516
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
Been Liked: 2564 times
Has Liked: 300 times

Re: Liverpool v Burnley - Player Ratings

Post by dandeclaret » Sat Jan 23, 2021 3:47 pm

It is an accumulation...... you are absolutely right. But they are an accumulation on the season, so should reflect the success or lack of in that season, shouldn't they?

Over last season, Nick Pope missed out on the golden glove on the last day of the season. Some rate him as the best in the division, some rate him as he should be England's number one keeper. He kept 15 clean sheets last season, and had the 4th highest saves in the division. His accumulation score for the 2019/20 season - 7.09 - Good. According to these stats, Nick Pope, playing for Burnley, last year, splitting keepers costing 20x his price and those in the player ratings thread gave his performance over the season 7/10. Surely if somebody said give Pope a rating for the year 2019/20, very very few people would be saying 7.09

James Tarkowski last season, on one site, was rated in the top 5 centre halves in Europe. Very close to the top of the blocks, tackles, aerial challenges. Key man in securing a top 10 finish for the club. Accumulated rating.... 7.47 - Good.

Not one player last year in a season where Burnley finished 10th got a rating of Very Good. Chris Wood who finished the season with double figure goals, was rated Average. Is it really average for a striker, at Burnley to score double digits.

Fundamentally, the accumulation of scores does not accurately reflect the achievements over a season. Finish 10th - and not one player rated very good is impossible isn't it? Or am I wrong?

Either expectations are way out of line, or style points are being much more harshly judged than substance is rewarded. But fundamentally, the output is illogical, as evidenced above.

Post Reply