I'm flabbergasted that you see football this way. Just because a team wins it doesn't mean they've played well and just because a team loses it doesn't mean they played badly. As a unit I thought that Liverpool were fine in defence. Individual errors led to the goals rather than the way they were set up. Similarly with the attack and midfield, they were set up well and created enough chances to win the game but poor finishing let them down, again, individuals. Obviously those key moments led to them losing and why I do not disagree that Madrid deserved to win the game because they took their chances but Liverpool weren't poor 'overall' in the context of the 90'. A few of the chances they missed were down to individuals finishing poorly and some were down to good keeping. Similarly defensively they made individual mistakes but they also did well to block, intercept and clear at times too - Konate and Trent did well for the majority of the game.
The Athletic: Only in an alternate reality should Real Madrid be Champions League winners
- Thread starter IrishRedDevil
- Start date
I'm flabbergasted that you see football this way. Just because a team wins it doesn't mean they've played well and just because a team loses it doesn't mean they played badly. As a unit I thought that Liverpool were fine in defence. Individual errors led to the goals rather than the way they were set up. Similarly with the attack and midfield, they were set up well and created enough chances to win the game but poor finishing let them down, again, individuals. Obviously those key moments led to them losing and why I do not disagree that Madrid deserved to win the game because they took their chances but Liverpool weren't poor 'overall' in the context of the 90'. A few of the chances they missed were down to individuals finishing poorly and some were down to good keeping. Similarly defensively they made individual mistakes but they also did well to block, intercept and clear at times too - Konate and Trent did well for the majority of the game.
So is a job of a defender not to keep a clean sheet?
It is irrelevant if you do this for 1 minute, or 89, if you fail as a defender to keep a clean sheet then you simply haven't played well or done your job/why you are in the team.
Same for an attacking player, it doesn't matter if it is for 1 minute or 89, if you haven't scored then, you haven't done your job/why you were are in the team.
It isn't really rocket science, players get picked for a reason, if they don't do what they are picked to do, then they have failed.
It is quite simple really.
I think you see football too black and white for me personally.
In your example if I'm a CB who has made 5 blocks, 10 interceptions and 20 tackles in a game, put on 3 clear cut chances for my teammates but score an own goal leading to us losing a game 1-0 I've had a poor game. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Depending on your goalkeeper to perform well consistently isn't unsustainable. You expect the best goalkeepers to generally perform well.
Depending on your goalkeeper to perform as well as Courtois did in the final to win games is unsustainable though. Because we know the level of performances Courtois and the best performing goalkeepers generally tend to put in on average over a longer run of games. And what Courtois did in the final was far above that. In real terms it is impossible for him to perform like that week in week out.
Similarly, depending on a striker like Salah or Benzema to perform consistently well isn't unsustainable. But if they scored 5 goals from 1 xG in a one-off game say, we would absolutely say that level of overperformance is unsustainable.
That performance against Arsenal was a true unbelievable performance, if the scousers want a case study on what should be deemed as such.
It does make sense, as a game is played for the full duration of the game, so up until that own goal, sure you would have played well, done your job etc, but by scoring that own goal, it means all of what you did previously is no null and void/irrelevant.
Your job is to keep a clean sheet for the full duration of the game as a defender not 1 minute, or 89, but for however long a game lasts for.
I think the xG for the match suggests that none of Liverpool's chances were high quality. I think most of them were 0.3 xG or lower. Mane's shot that Courtois saved in the 21st minute was a solid finish.
Thats because he is talking rubbish. Hes basically saying luck and factors outside a players control dictate how well they have played.
By that wisdom a player on the losing side would almost never be MotM. A goalkeeper certainly wouldn't because they let in goals and therefore were clearly rubbish.
Their thinking is exactly why United are in a mess right now. Ignoring performance and only looking at results. Eventually results reflect performances and thats what happened to United and then the whole thing came crashing down due to the complete lack of foundation to the way the team operated and played.
Bizarre way of looking at football. Lukaku was Chelseas top scorer this season, do you think he had a good season?
In the games that he scored in yes, he played well, in the games that he didn't, no he didn't play well.
Huh, if a game say finishes 4-3, and on the losing team, a player scores a hat-trick, them he did his job, he scored three goals, he played well, he could rightly be up for MoM awards.
So not sure I get why you think a player on a defeated side couldn't be up for such awards.
You don’t really believe this, do you? Surely not.
Pretty sure he's scored a tap in and played absolutely shit.
If I turn up for my job and do one good thing but the rest of the day is awful, my boss is saying "well done"?
If a RB trundles over for a TD from a yard, but fumbles 4 times, has he had a good game? Ditto most sports/jobs
A striker is in a team to score goals are they not, if not why are they in a team?
So, if they score, they have done their job in that particular game.
What is so controversial about that?
Presumably the part in bold is something to do with American football, if so, sorry, I can't comment, as I don't follow that sport in enough detail to give a good enough reply.
Few years back remember Chelsea parked a nice solid bus against Bayern to win the UCL.
Athletic articles, xG, fbRef, advanced goalkeeping stats would be funny to read if they were written.
Personally I think the stats are contributing to the outcome bias before even a game starts. The phrases like “defensive masterclass” “gold standard defending” will be gone in future.
Athletic articles, xG, fbRef, advanced goalkeeping stats would be funny to read if they were written.
Personally I think the stats are contributing to the outcome bias before even a game starts. The phrases like “defensive masterclass” “gold standard defending” will be gone in future.
So you do not believe it’s possible for a striker to have a poor game generally, but still score?
Their finishing wasn't poor, Courtois was amazing
I feel like a mix of both is true.
Source for that? The stats
Seen a model of that game recently and yes, it was every bit as silly as you can imagine
Statsbomb model has 2.4 xG and 3.5 post-shot for Liverpool
This whole thing is quite mad. Liverpool were the better side on the night, but not by such a margin to warrant this level of post-match analysis. Not even close to that. There are matches happening every week in every league where a side who were slightly better lose a football match. I'd feel quite disrespected by all of this if I were a Madrid fan.
Huh, Liverpool were not the better side on the night, not sure what metrics you are using to suggest or put forward such a notion.
Loads of other stuff. They don’t just score do they? No one would be daft enough to think that. Teams have won the league with strikers not racking up huge goal tallies.
Indeed. Firmino scored 9 goals when they won the PL.
Last edited:
Just my own opinion from watching the game as a neutral.
Glitches in the system are not allowed
Glitches in the system are not
Glitches in the system are
…
Glitches
The Athletic article is baffling because it's not even making a 'stats say Liverpool should have won' argument. It's just fan fiction. It claims Liverpool should have scored in the 1st minute from a chance that, as far as I'm aware, didn't even happen.
So apply your logic to a defender. The only way they can have a good game is if they don't concede any goals. Did a striker have a good game if they score 2 goals? What if they lost 3-2 and that stiker missed 3 tap ins? Did they have a good game.
Your views are mind bogglingly simplistic and completely ignore the intricacies of football and the fact its a team sport and the fact that your opposition can dictate so much of the outcome of a game.
Did the left back have a bad game because they conceded 5 goals all down the right backs side of the pitch. Did the keeper have a bad game because it ended 4-0 even though the xG suggested it should be 10-0 and he saved the team time and time again. What about midfielders? What stats do you want to assess them on?
Stats are useful but you need to watch games and appreciate the ebb and flow and how chances are created and how players actually perform on the pitch. Stats need context.
You don't have to apologise but if you watched it at all, you'd get the analogy. And surely you get the one about working?
I'll keep it simple (hopefully helps). If a forward scores a deflected goal and in the rest of the game does NOTHING.... gives the ball away, scores 2 OGs, gets carded, by your definition, he'd have a good game.
There are shades of grey. Don't need to keep doubling down.
I'm not that poster but there's a pretty obvious difference between "giving the ball away" and "scoring two own goals."
Read some of that guys other pieces/tweets. Guys a loon.
There is to me also.
However, the post was "In the games that he scored in yes, he played well".
You'll see other examples given above (like the one about defenders and GKs), reply to them too.
Yeah these are independent models and don't really have to be strictly objective. They can probably have an additional metric that adjust for "clear and obvious" ref errors. So that the original model is still transparent and only those who can trust the source's opinion on what was a blatant mistake has been reviewed and added.
Italian managers are a breed who can study a game and change appropriately to their opponent on the day.
Mourinho is good at this too.
Ancellotti changed tactics at half time and Klopp was not good enough to see what happened.
Real rode their luck in the first half but could have scored more in the 2nd half after the goal.
Mourinho is good at this too.
Ancellotti changed tactics at half time and Klopp was not good enough to see what happened.
Real rode their luck in the first half but could have scored more in the 2nd half after the goal.
No that didn't happen. Pool was the only team that played well and got robbed because the Real Madrid keeper was up for the task.
Really?!
So Pool got robbed by Courtois and that's all?
Yours is a very simplistic reading of the actual match.
I am just kidding. I have been trying to point out since the weekend, that the result was more about what Real did than what Liverpool wasn't able to. Of course Courtois made 2-3 brilliant saves and a bunch of regular ones, but that was expected from Real Madrid's keeper. But Real Madrid read Liverpool well and reacted well.
I would dare to say that if City had managed to make it to the finals, Klopp would have outdone Pep.
That's what I'm thinking - yes.
It isn't ONE universal model anyway - there are multiple models, using slightly different metrics.
To me, at least, it would make some sense to adjust for - precisely - "clear and obvious ref errors". So - if you will - I would prefer a model that did adjust for that to one that did not.
Again - because "clear and obvious ref errors" is a genuine thing, i.e. a potentially significant (enough) factor over time.