For whatever reason, Christian Poulsen has been a regular whipping-boy for Liverpool fans over the last year. He has constantly been labelled 'not good enough', and generally treated with disrespect. This is totally unfair because, as I will illustrate, Poulsen had a positive impact for Liverpool overall.
Fans have been spouting the same old cliches about Poulsen since he arrived (he's rubbish/slow/poor at tackling etc), and now that he's gone, I'm sure he'll be labelled a failure, irrespective of his individual *impact* on the team.
To fairly judge Poulsen's effectiveness for Liverpool, we need to consider the following questions:
Q. What position did he play?
A. Defensive midfielder
Q. What was his primary role in the team?
A. To break up play and stop the other team attacking. To stop goals being scored. To prevent Liverpool from losing.
Q. How do we fairly judge his specific, measurable impact (SMI)?
A. By looking at how effective the team performs with Poulsen in it (i.e. goals conceded; games lost etc).
If you're judging a striker, you look at goals scored; shots on target etc. If you're analysing a creative player, you look at assists; if you're analysing a goalkeeper you look at goals conceded; number of saves etc. And so on throughout the team. Defensive midfielders are no exception to that rule of analysis.
Poulsen was NOT a creative midfielder; it was NOT his job to create chances, score goals or take a big part in attacking play. As such, it is unfair to consider his impact in those areas when assessing his effectiveness.
Lucas has the same primary role as Poulsen; is he judged on anything but his defensive ability? No. Why then should Poulsen be constantly criticised for doing exactly the same job?
last season, Poulsen was actually very effective for the team when called upon, which makes a complete mockery of the barracking he constantly received.
CHRISTIAN POULSEN: Appearance analysis
When Poulsen played, Liverpool:
I would be interested to hear people justify their negative views of Poulsen in light of this. Just saying 'It's obvious by watching him play' is not going to cut it. It means nothing, and is not really a valid argument.
I don't see how anyone can credibly maintain the argument that Poulsen was a bad player for Liverpool. If anything, he seems to have been a victim of 'guilt by association', i.e. criticised purely because he was signed by Roy Hodgson.
I'm not saying the club should have kept him at Anfield - it was the right move to let him leave - I just think fans should be fairer in their appraisal of the player as he deserves a hell of a lot more respect than he's been given.
I personally wish Poulsen the best of luck with his new team in France.
Jaimie Kanwar
Fans have been spouting the same old cliches about Poulsen since he arrived (he's rubbish/slow/poor at tackling etc), and now that he's gone, I'm sure he'll be labelled a failure, irrespective of his individual *impact* on the team.
To fairly judge Poulsen's effectiveness for Liverpool, we need to consider the following questions:
Q. What position did he play?
A. Defensive midfielder
Q. What was his primary role in the team?
A. To break up play and stop the other team attacking. To stop goals being scored. To prevent Liverpool from losing.
Q. How do we fairly judge his specific, measurable impact (SMI)?
A. By looking at how effective the team performs with Poulsen in it (i.e. goals conceded; games lost etc).
If you're judging a striker, you look at goals scored; shots on target etc. If you're analysing a creative player, you look at assists; if you're analysing a goalkeeper you look at goals conceded; number of saves etc. And so on throughout the team. Defensive midfielders are no exception to that rule of analysis.
Poulsen was NOT a creative midfielder; it was NOT his job to create chances, score goals or take a big part in attacking play. As such, it is unfair to consider his impact in those areas when assessing his effectiveness.
Lucas has the same primary role as Poulsen; is he judged on anything but his defensive ability? No. Why then should Poulsen be constantly criticised for doing exactly the same job?
last season, Poulsen was actually very effective for the team when called upon, which makes a complete mockery of the barracking he constantly received.
CHRISTIAN POULSEN: Appearance analysis
- Total Appearances: 21
- Minutes on pitch: 1469
- Wins: 10
- Draws: 7
- Defeats: 4
- Team goals scored: 25
- Team goals conceded: 14
- Total games unbeaten: 17
- Clean sheets: 12
When Poulsen played, Liverpool:
- Was unbeaten in 80% of games (The overall season average was 70% of games unbeaten)
- Only conceded a goal every 104 minutes
- Achieved clean sheets in 57% of games (overall, the club managed 23 clean sheets last season; Poulsen played in 12 of those games)
- Lost only 19% of games (The overall season loss average was 29%)
I would be interested to hear people justify their negative views of Poulsen in light of this. Just saying 'It's obvious by watching him play' is not going to cut it. It means nothing, and is not really a valid argument.
I don't see how anyone can credibly maintain the argument that Poulsen was a bad player for Liverpool. If anything, he seems to have been a victim of 'guilt by association', i.e. criticised purely because he was signed by Roy Hodgson.
I'm not saying the club should have kept him at Anfield - it was the right move to let him leave - I just think fans should be fairer in their appraisal of the player as he deserves a hell of a lot more respect than he's been given.
I personally wish Poulsen the best of luck with his new team in France.
Jaimie Kanwar
lol
ReplyDeleteok lets put it this way. do you know how to manage better than King Kenny. Kenny thought Poulsen was not good enough! if thats a good enough reason for him its bloody well good enough for all of us
ReplyDeleteHe didn't ever get stuck in. Never looked motivated, despite these facts i watched almost every game last season and can't remember him being anythign better than average. The difference between him and Lucas is huge.
ReplyDeleteYour point isn't really relevant though as a) he played usually against "lesser" sides, so I'd be surprised if we had lost more games than we won and b) you can't judge a player in isolation. If we started the game with two centre backs in centre mid and two full backs on the wing, of course we wouldn't concede much. However, we wouldn't score many either. Poulsen may have been good defensively but gave the ball away at an alarming rate and did not contribute much to positive play. He conducted himself with dignity and wanted to do well for the club, so I've not got anything negative to say about him, apart from the fact that he didn't fit into our team pattern and the fact that if we want to be a top team, we need to have players who can do more than one thing well.
ReplyDeleteIf you think Poulsen was a good player for Liverpool Football Club please attach a strong rope around your neck tie it to a bridge and jump off. You utter fucking retard.
ReplyDeletePerhaps because we spent £4.5m on him and let him go for free 12 months later. Money well spent? I don't think it's personal with him, just that he clearly wasn't good enough from day one, nice stats, but nothing special, old and slow. Hodgson and Cecil wasted that money and therefore should be ridiculed. But that not Poulsen's fault and I wish him the best for the future too.
ReplyDeletepoulsen was unfairly judged, i will agree with that. i too, was guilty of thinking upon him as a mediocre player not worthy of the liverpool shirt.
ReplyDeletei think your right in saying that it was probably due to the fact that he was a hodgson signing. would we have thought the same of him if KK had have signed him? probably not.
this is a player who won the Danish player of the year 2 years in a row. hes been capped internationally over 80 times.
but it begs the question, for someone who is statistically quite good, what was it about him that we disliked so much?
we felt the same about lucas at the start.
now lucas is one of our best players.
just proves how fickle fans are these days.
Ah, how I've missed your reactionary, contrary attention seeking twaddle Kanwar. Poulsen was an average player signed by an average manager and played in many games that did not matter which accounts for the pleasing stats. How'd he do against the top teams? Oh yeah, he didn't play. Why could that be???
ReplyDeleteI was going to say watch him play then next time. I would suggest you possibly look at freekicks given away as i was at Utd away last season and it seemed every attempt at a tackle was a freekick against us, he used to give it away in some bad areas as well. Ok now i know you love an argument thats why you entice people to this site with articles like this but come on why o why. He may not have been a complete tool but he was not that spectacular either. In my opinion i look at him and he was not really that good at anything. To justify liverpool performed better defensively is a bit rich as well. 14 goals conceded in 21 appearences isnt exactly brilliant is it. I would say he was a nothing player. Spearing looks a better player than him. and when i think of the last couple of defensive midfielders we have had not including Lucas. Sissoko and Mascarano are far superior even if sissoko was terrible at passing etc. He was also a destructive force at times ie Chelsea in community shield. Like i said for me without being terrible, he wasnt spectacular and a bit of a nothing type player.
ReplyDeleteGet over the Roy Hodgson thing, aswel as Benitez sick of thinking of the past, lets move forward, lets talk about whats hear and now. Dalglish doing a good job, how Bellamy will provide good quality cover etc.
Before you do though, without these stats, do you a) think he's a good player worthy of the liverpool shirt and b) think that he could sustain and justify a place in the liverpool team after a summer of strenghthening?
Did I not say at the end of the article that it was the right decision to move him on? I'm talking about the time Poulsen was actually here.
ReplyDeletequite simply after watching Liverpool for 38 years Christian Poulson was the 2nd worst player Ihave seen in a red shirt. Not as bad as Dundee but I would put players like Clough, Carter, Dicks and the like as better than him. Not Christians fault it didnt happen for him and I wish him all the best but he simply wasnt good enough maybe he will show more at a lower level
ReplyDeleteI agree to you that Poulsen was harshly treated by fans. However, I still feel that normally in the few games he played in, it was against the weaker teams and probably besides defending, he doesn't provide anything else. Whereas, Lucas starts attacks all the time from his defensive midfiled position. Anyway, all the best to Poulsen.
ReplyDeleteYour post is full of generalisations. The fact is Liverpool was unbeaten in 80% of games in which poulsen played, and he contributed to over 50% of the club's overall clean sheets.
ReplyDeleteDoes that not constitute a positive impact by player?
This article is typical of Hodgson's entire thinking which was: Try not to lose.
ReplyDeleteHence why he bought Poulsen in the first place and why we had to get rid.
This is a strategy, a player, and a manager not worthy of Liverpool Football Club.
(Neither is this blog post for that matter Mr Save a Point).
But we wish well to all (in the obscurity they richly deserve).
another strange article...
ReplyDeleteJK, shudnt u next actually look deeper into the facts. Yes you can argue Poulsen has good stats but the games he played were against weaker opposition, cups, etc..
isnt there enough to write about the new liverpool...where will gerard fit into?, Coates?, Bellamy? etc etc etc...
then writing articles about a player who played 21 times and was pretty awful throughout
How many clubs were in for Poulsen? Er...the mighty Evian...not even his No.1 fan Roy Hodgson wasn't interested this time around.
ReplyDeleteStats only show some things in a game and you can also paint a picture of stats to suit a particular opinion, I watched every game last season and whilst Poulsen may have played in games where we didnt loose in 80% whereas the overal season was 70% you fail to show how many minutes/games he actually completed. You say Lucas only gets judged on his defensive abilities yet its well documented that he completes in and around 90% of his passes dictates the play and is hugely effective in his forward play (although poor record in goal scoring). Also under hodgson the team was set up to NOT to concede and if we were lucky enough we might nick a goal to get 3 points THIS is not how we want our team to play. Poulsen was rash in the tackle (would like to see the stats of free kicks he gave away and in what areas) slow to track back and also lost his marker on few occassions that cost us REAL goals - anyone who watched the team play under hodgson can easily tell you the teams he put out simply were not good enough and the revolution under Kenny was there for all to see (although he made some mistakes to). I struggle to work out why you would use such a derised player to illustrate your points, is it to simply get people to log onto you sight (like myself) with idiotic and controversial statements, do you have some affilliation with all things hodgson, do you actually know what your talking about or something else entirely?
ReplyDeleteSimply put poulsen isnt good enough to play for Liverpool
ReplyDeletehe was a typical hodgson signing non of which were good enough to play for LFC. Kenny thought he was not good enough the whole time he was at the club and could not wait to get rid. if your a fan of poulsen go support evian.
ReplyDeleteas usual total bollocks
ReplyDeleteI write about stuff that interests me. I fyou don't like it, you're free to go to other LFC sites that write about the stuff you want.
ReplyDeletepass completion and tackle sucess rates would be a better metric than game stats, poulsen was only risked against lesser teams against whom we were expected to win.
ReplyDelete<p><span>This makes really good reading Jaimie! </span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span>I was impressed with Poulsen, however, I think that it’s been made quite clear that the player was a Hodgson signing. There in no coincidence that Roy's signings have all been shown the door one way or another! </span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span>I think that people have a bitter view of Roy Hodgson, I think that did the best of the mess that Liverpool were in at the time. I along with many other Liverpool fans didn't feel that Roy Hodgson was given a fair trial at Liverpool. Where I do completely understand why the decision was made, I do feel that he was not treated with the respect that he deserves.</span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span>On a much better note, Liverpool are looking like a real force this season! Some real great depth and quality in the squad now! Which has lacked for a long time!</span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span>If this offends anyone, big deal! </span>
</p>
The number of games Poulsen complete is irrelevant. I've included his minutes on the pitch in the article, which provides a more accurate picture.
ReplyDeleteThis is a typically blinkered reply - you're not being objective. Who signed Poulsen is irrelevant - how the team performed with him in it is what matters.
ReplyDeleteWhat was his pass completion, I'd be amazed if it hit 50%.
ReplyDeleteStats like this only show half the info. He gave away an awful lot of passes and barely ever followed up with a tackle in return, no real heart, and he wore a daft headband that reminded me a little of he who must not be named. Good luck to him and all the best.
As well as i missed last couple of paragraphs, sorry would like to add, why are we not giving him respect? I would say nobody is really bothered that he is gone and do wish him the best but by saying he was never good enough in the first place is not disrespect its just what we believe as fact.
ReplyDeleteAlso if youre referring to say the boos early last season and thats why he deserved more respect, i will counteract that with emotions were running high and maybe even tho people know its wrong they cant help but show there emotions, like you really, didnt you stop doing articles because of all the cheating and the fact we were signing Luis Suarez. Emotions can be funny sometimes.
if you're going to make the argument that he 'gave away an awful lot of passes' then provide evidence to back it up. if you can't, then it's just a baseless assertion.
ReplyDeleteYou can make statistics say anything you want them to. He was crap pure and simple. defensive midfielder! I could take the ball off him and I'm in my mid sixties.
ReplyDeletesorry 1 final comment, stats arent the be all end all. Remember Biscan, Traore etc have chempions league winners medals. Which is a stat. Now please dont try and justify that these 2 were also good players, who were good for Liverpool.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is completely incorrect. Remember Poulsen mostly only played under Hodgson, which as we know played a very defensive game which Poulsen suited. He may have broken up their play but stifled any of our own play. For instance Alonso played this part particulary well, he managed to break up the oppositions play and contributed to the way Liverpool were able to move forward. Poulsen gave away the ball consistently and when he didn't he failed to give that decisive pass. Now with Adams you can already see Liverpool moving forward quicker and more aggressively. Yes you point out that Poulsen's primary role is the defensive side but a defensive midfielders role is a lot more than that, well it is when you're playing for Liverpool anyway.
ReplyDeletePrecisely, Ian. it wasn't Poulsen's fault he was signed by Hodgson. Once at the club, he just had to get on with it, but he's been slagged off at every turn by fans unwilling to look at his contribution fairly.
ReplyDeleteDoes it not interest you what his pass rate was like or his tackle success rate was? Can you not find this info out for us>??
ReplyDeleteWhy was he crap? Please explain with specific examples; perhaps highlight some errors he made that led to Liverpool losing a game, for example?
ReplyDeleteI disaggree with you about lucas he was a young impetuous player from brazil coming with high regard and struggled to adapt to a new culture and type of football yet he showed glimpses early on what he could do. Add the the fact he was understudy to alonso, javier and stevie made life even more difficult for him yet he never hid and took the criticism with dignity worked hard and won over the fans who doubted him. Poulsen was past his best in the twilight of his career and a seasoned international, came in during a turbulent time and played a bit part role and epitomised the approach of hodgsons footballing ideology. Yes fans can be fickle but with regards to poulsen he simply was not good enough. Good luck to him in the future.
ReplyDeletewhat a load of old tripe.
ReplyDeletePoulsen was absolutely rubbish. your stats reveal nothing. ie what kind of teams was he played against - crap one's.
why's that?
because poulsen is crap.
why don't you just go and support West brom?
Poulsen was a Liverpool success.
ReplyDeleteHe is the reason we are heading back to the top of the league.
obviously the reason he is a success is that his signing proved how useless Hodgson was & why we now have the King back in charge.
bet Arsenal fans wished they had signed him last night!
well said Rossi - its the responsivlity of the writer of an article full of stats to encompass all the stats, not just teh one's that favour his argument.
ReplyDeletereaders haven't got the time/havent got the motivation to go around searching for stats to disprove what they already no to be a load of old tripe.
This websitie is rubbish. You just write intentionally provocative nonsense to get a headline and divert more traffic to your rubbish site. Quality of journalism = nil. I won't be back.
ReplyDeleteFootball is a matter of opinion and all the stats in the world won't change mine my opinion that poulsen isnt good enough to represent our club regardless of how Many games we didn't lose when he played because hodgson played for a draw most games ur stats add up but not in the mind of most Liverpool fans
ReplyDeletethats my fault for not explaining myself better i didnt mean games he completed it was just a figure of speech. what is relevent is what calibre of teams he did play against my current stat of win percentage is almost 100% and i play midfield in saying that its only in 5 a side games see stats dont tell the whole story
ReplyDeletethe stats you gave don't really give any indication of poulson's contribution, giving his opta stats would be a better way.
ReplyDeletei think poulson struggled in a few key games, mostly down to his distribution. i don't think he was good enough, and his price tag and association with hodgeson will probably mean he gets labelled a failure. however, i would agree that this is a bit unfair, and a very lazy tag that most fans will give him. i think he's a decent player who can do a specific job, and for the most part, he came in and did it at liverpool. the times that he played badly i wouldn't even blame him for too much, as the entire team was in a rut, gerrard and torres included.
Worst article I have ever read, terrible terrible "journalism".
ReplyDeletehis distribution was consistently poor. i would disagree that he had no real heart though. this is pretty baseless.
ReplyDeleteI agree bish its like the old benitez argument about how much was spent and the squad he left us with - Jaimie doesnt like to add that he made over half that money from sales and i think over his time he spent 13 mill a season net.
ReplyDeleteI find it tiring but enjoyable arguing with him. He knows how to start a debate but wont accept other peoples views.
I mean come on are all of us who have responded to this article completly wrong and dont know whats going on or are we missing something. I cant see how anyone would say Poulson did a good job. It just doesnt compute.
his stats probably improved when Suarez came as did liverpools form, now i will state that this 1 player (suarez) can make a massive individual contribution to the team and i would love to know where we would have ended up if we had not signed him. Prob bottom half i reckon. He's a worldbeater and as good as anything in world football bar Messi, maybe Ronaldo
Jaimie, i think you wrote this article because you want to come across as someone who knows about football, but theres just one problem... your opinion doesn't really matter, and all the stats in the world won't change that. Suggestion... maybe you should find something more productive to spend your time on??
ReplyDeletehe played a hand ful of games against weak opposition. the reason he played a handful of games ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
ReplyDeleteWhat was the point of buying Poulsen, honestly?! He was a total liability. He gave away one of the most ridiculous penalties ever vs Sunderland, then lost a header in centre mid against Henderson for their 2nd goal in that match. Also cost us a goal vs Napoli in the UEFA cup...
ReplyDeleteThen after him strolling back to the penalty box when Blackpool scored their winner at Anfield, I'd seen enough. At least Konchesky never lacked effort even if he was positionally poor.
The undeniable reality is Poulsen’s legs have gone; he never makes a tackle because he isn't quick enough to get to his opponent.<span> </span>
To be a defensive midfielder in this league you need some speed across the turf. But one of Roy's "10 to watch in the World Cup" had clearly shot his bolt in the 2010 World Cup.
I saw him chasing shadows against the might of the Japanese and knew this would turn out to be a disaster. Denmark were totally outplayed in midfield and lost 3-1.
For us to pay Juventus £4.5m for him when he had been on their bench for two years was a negligent and criminal act. The Juventus fans were hanging out the bunting and doing cartwheels when it was announced that we had bought him. They couldn't believe their luck...
Poulsen was far too slow to play in the premier league after two seasons of inactivity on the Juventus Bench.
As a defensive midfielder how many tackles did he attempt and succeed in should be the barometer of his worth. Please publish this figure in comparison to Lucas for instance. I did not see him make that many tackles because as I pointed out his legs had gone and he was far too slow to be effective. If he had been any good surely he would have been retained by the club instead of being shunted out?
He was slow, tackled poorly and gave the ball away regularly. Only when watching him in the flesh at anfield could you see just how poor he was - not from watching snippets on TV. Stats can be used to argue any nonsense about football, but those who play the game and watch the game regularly can see the difference between a player like say.... Lucas and a player like Poulson
ReplyDeleteWell I dont know how everyone can slag off the article, it presents some statistics and gives an opinion. We dont all agree! I didn't rate Poulsen and found him agonisingly frustrating to watch so I am happy about his leaving but I dont dislike 'him' (as a person) at all. From what I saw his attitude and professionalism was top class and he had respect for the club - he was just no good! The stats are what they are but those of us who have watched the past year know how poorly the team played with him in it. He played in games where his damage could be limited somewhat (i.e. against low opposition) but he was still not good enough. Thats just my opinion though, the article presents Jaimies (like it or not).... I dont really think the fans are on his back because of who he was signed by either, it is purely because he plays in the manner that Hodgeson liked to set up in and play football like (i.e. slow, predictable, clumsy).
ReplyDelete100%correct Rich. He only got a game against the poorer teams
ReplyDeleteJaimie perhaps you could explain to me why you think everyone else thinks he was poor. Do we all lack the basic understanding of the game? Are you the only person able to see things with a fair mind? I ask becasue you are literally the only LFC fan i know that has these views aobut Poulsen. I don't think the 3 questions you have asked about him are the only ones needed to judge him fairly. I know you disagree but the quality of opposition definitely matters. The Guilty by association arguement does not wash either, I think the fact that he very quickly fell out of favour with the manager that signed him tells its own story. His value dropped massively in only 12 months. He has recently been dropped from the Danish squad. The only club we could find for him was a very unfancied newly promoted french side. .
ReplyDeleteOne more thing i dont understand is that you claim he had such a positive effect on the team adn did his job so well, all this in a side that performed horribly last year. That would lead me to believe that you think he was one of our best palyers last season. Why do you agree with selling one of our best players of last season?
Stats and stats alone do not tell the whole story. Why not compare the stats last season of Berbatov and Wellbeck and tell us who should start
What was the point of buying him, honestly?! He was a total liability. He gave away one of the most ridiculous penalties ever vs Sunderland, then lost a header in centre mid against Henderson for their 2nd goal in that match. Also cost us a goal vs Napoli in the UEFA cup...
ReplyDeleteThen after him strolling back to the penalty box when Blackpool scored their winner at Anfield, I'd seen enough. At least Konchesky never lacked effort even if he was positionally poor.
The undeniable reality is Poulsen’s legs have gone; he never makes a tackle because he isn't quick enough.<span> </span>
To be a defensive midfielder in any top league you need some speed across the turf. But one of Roy's "10 to watch in the World Cup" had clearly shot his bolt in the World Cup. I saw him chasing shadows against the might of the Japanese and knew this would turn out to be a disaster. Denmark were totally outplayed in midfield and lost 3-1.
For us to pay Juventus £4.5m for him when he had been on their bench for two years was a negligent and criminal act. The Juventus fans were hanging out the bunting and doing cartwheels when it was announced that we had bought him. They couldn't believe their luck...
Poulsen was far too slow to play in the premier league after two seasons of inactivity on the Juventus Bench.
As a defensive midfielder how many tackles did he attempt and succeed in should be the barometer of his worth. Please publish this figure in comparison to Lucas for instance. I did not see him make that many tackles because as I pointed out his legs had gone and he was far too slow to be effective. If he had been any good surely he would have been retained by the club instead of being shunted out?
Jaimie perhaps you could explain to me why you think everyone else thinks he was poor. Do we all lack the basic understanding of the game? Are you the only person able to see things with a fair mind? I ask becasue you are literally the only LFC fan i know that has these views aobut Poulsen. I don't think the 3 questions you have asked about him are the only ones needed to judge him fairly. I know you disagree but the quality of opposition definitely matters. The Guilty by association arguement does not wash either, I think the fact that he very quickly fell out of favour with the manager that signed him tells its own story. His value dropped massively in only 12 months. He has recently been dropped from the Danish squad. The only club we could find for him was a very unfancied newly promoted french side. .
ReplyDeleteOne more thing i dont understand is that you claim he had such a positive effect on the team adn did his job so well, all this in a side that performed horribly last year. That would lead me to believe that you think he was one of our best palyers last season. Why do you agree with selling one of our best players of last season?
Stats and stats alone do not tell the whole story. Why not compare the stats last season of Berbatov and Wellbeck and tell us who should start
Rossi spot on during the whole Benitez saga the arguments were made for and against and it was claimed many fans hated Rafa as loved him, however i fail to remember a single period during his time where people voted with their feet and didnt go to games - fans who generally go to games often have a better perception of the teams ability etc they emmerse themselves more and sacrifice more than those who cant get to games. these same fans chose to silently voice their opposition to hodgson team - simply because they were not good enough
ReplyDeleteI've seen Poulsen play 'in the flesh' several times. The fact remains the team stats with him playing are very good.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the point of buying him, honestly?! Poulsen was far too slow to play in the premier league after two seasons of inactivity on the Juventus Bench.
ReplyDeleteHe was a total liability. He gave away one of the most ridiculous penalties ever vs Sunderland, then lost a header in centre mid against Henderson for their 2nd goal in that match. Also cost us a goal vs Napoli in the UEFA cup...
Then after him strolling back to the penalty box when Blackpool scored their winner at Anfield, I'd seen enough. At least Konchesky never lacked effort even if he was positionally poor.
The undeniable reality is Poulsen’s legs have gone; he never makes a tackle because he isn't quick enough.<span> </span>
To be a defensive midfielder in this league you need some speed across the turf. But one of Roy's "10 to watch in the World Cup" had clearly shot his bolt in the World Cup. I saw him chasing shadows against the might of the Japanese and knew this would turn out to be a disaster. Denmark were totally outplayed in midfield and lost 3-1.
For us to pay Juventus £4.5m for him when he had been on their bench for two years was a negligent and criminal act. The Juventus fans were hanging out the bunting and doing cartwheels when it was announced that we had bought him. They couldn't believe their luck...
As a defensive midfielder how many tackles did he attempt and succeed in should be the barometer of his worth. Please publish this figure in comparison to Lucas for instance. I did not see him make that many tackles because as I pointed out his legs had gone and he was far too slow to be effective. If he had been any good surely he would have been retained by the club instead of being shunted out?
Do you really think that everyone here (let alone every other Liverpool fan) that knows Poulsen wasn't good enough for us are wrong? And your 'stats' tell the whole story? Do you think Kenny buys players on stats alone? Stats can easily mislead, which it has clearly done to you.
ReplyDeleteIf I had stats for pass completion etc I would've used them. I don't have them, hence they're not included. The thing is though, even if I did have those statsm and they were excellent, people would then find something else to bitch about. 'Okay, his pass completion stats are good but what about headers? he didn't win many headers, did he?.
ReplyDeleteWhat is baseless is your assertion that 'his distribution was pretty poor'. Prove it.
ReplyDeleteWhat did you think, when you saw him, forget about stats? be honest?
ReplyDeleteI do enjoy reading Jamie's response-baiting style - it is so clearly designed for the sole purpose of provocation. It would be amusing if anyone thought he really believed any of what he wrote.
ReplyDeleteThis is a typically amusing article, laying claim to "analysis" and then doing no more than bandying around a few percentages.
For the arguments to have any validity, it would require proper statistical analysis of the team performance with and without Poulsen playing. Ideally all players would be considered as variables contributing to an outcome, and then one could build up a real picture of each player's input.
Even if one were to accept that some "interesting facts" (I think the claim of "proof" might be pushing it) could be uncovered without such in-depth analysis, it is plain to see that looking at stats for a single player is meaningless. These numbers only take on meaning when comparing the figures of a given player to those of the rest of the squad. Even then, the other problem (already mentioned above) is that the basic numbers quoted in the article assume that a clean sheet against a third division side would be the same as a clean sheet against Man Utd. That is clearly ridiculous.
Anyway, thanks Jamie for providing your usual entertainment.
i see everyone is agreeing with you again pal!
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point of your ? You give him weight with stats (how many games were against the good teams?) but then say it was right he left - Sitting on the fence journalism.
ReplyDeleteHe was another Hodgson duffer - 4.5 million for a 30 year old who good enough for an average Juventus side. We should have got Parker.
I'm not suggesting people who disagree only have a 'basic understanding of the game'. I just have my opinion - is that okay?
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, it doesn't matter how poor (subjectively) people think Poulsen was - the irrefutable fact is that with him in the team:
* Liverpool were unbeaten in 80% of games
* The club achieved 12 of its 23 clean sheets for the season
* The team only conceded a goal every 104 minutes
There is no credible way people can argue that he was 'consistently poor' with such figures.
A player who is poor makes serious mistakes, no? How could Liverpool keep 12 clean sheets with Poulsen in the team if he was such a poor player, especially since his main role was to stop the opposition scoring?
Within the confines of his role (breaking up play; tackling; stopping the opposition), Poulsen did a great job for LFC, and the stats show this.
If he was poor for the club, then it is down to you *prove* this with a factual argument. Just stating that 'everyone thinks he's poor' does not cut it.
The main question is, given the good "stats", why was he dropped by both RH and KD. In the case of Lucas, Even though some people (not me) disliked him at first, all of the managers RB, RH, KD were selecting him in the line up.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the fact that the guy couldn't pass, often got caught out in dangerous areas of the pitch, brought nothing to the team going forward, was slow, weak physically, and generally ineffective?
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the worst articles I've ever read. Defensive midfielders are called defensive midfielders, and not defenders, for a reason. They are the ones to link the play from back to front. The Gerrard/Torres link was often initiated by Xabi Alonso. He picked the ball up in a defensive midfielders position and found Gerrard in small pockets of space. Mascherano could pass, Lucas can pass, Spearing can pass. Poulsen couldn't.
A defensive midfielder who cannot pass is no use to anyone. What the point in him winning the ball back if he's going to make a bad pass and give away possession. To be honest I didn't even think Poulsen broke up opposition attacks very well.
It took this club ten years to recover from Souness, it's only taken 10 months to recover from Hodgson! Konchesky and Poulsen never good enough for LFC.
Think the opinion of most Liverpool fans on ere would be that he wasnt good enough when he played slow in posession ,poor distribution and for a defensive mid a poor tackler, now I know everyone has their own opinion which they are entitled to but if he was that good he'd still be playing and don't think kk would have let him go just because Roy hodgson signed him
ReplyDeleteI don't write to gain approval, or to ingratiate myself with people. I write what I believe, and I'm consistent with my views. If people disagree that's perfectly fine :)
ReplyDeleteThis is not baiting - I believe 100% of everything I write.
ReplyDeleteThere are varying levels of statistical analysis that can be done but the truth is, not matter how in depth I go, or how much I show Poulsen was an effective player, people will always find some way to attack the stats because they never want to accept them, even if they're irrefutable.
Of course, the opposite is true: if I post stats that people agree with, and reinforce their own personal beliefs, they'll be falling over themselves to agree.
Those who coach and train the squad will have looked at his stats. Damian Comolli is obsessed with stats and it is those people who will have looked at his stats and said 'not good enough', which is why he has been shipped off. At the end of the day the one opinion that counts is the manager's and his staff. His stats failed to impress them, so why you are impressed with them is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteNightster - cut out the derogatory comments or I will just ban you.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the fact that the guy couldn't pass, often got caught out in dangerous areas of the pitch, brought nothing to the team going forward, was slow, weak physically, and generally ineffective?
These are baselss generalisations. Please provide some proof to back these up. Give me one game example where Poulsen was 'weak physically' or 'got caught out in a dangerous area of the pitch' Please show the negative impact Poulsen had on the team.
If you can't, then your argument is pointless - it's just more meaningless *unfair* generalisation.
Once again: please provide a credible, factual argument why Poulsen was not good enough.
ReplyDeleteI have not argued that Poulsen shold've stayed; in fact, I stated the opposite in the article. I am merely saying that he has been judged too harshly, and based on the games he actually played, he did okay, which is absolutely true.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the stats suggest Poulsen wasn't 'that' bad I think he suffered criticism because he was a defensive player in what was an overly defensive team at the time. Would be good to know what proportion of his starts were alongside Lucas (another defensive mid-fielder)?
ReplyDeleteHi Jamie, next time Liverpool wants to sell deadwood you should help the club make a brochure if the player just like what Owen did. Maybe you can start doing for Carroll.
ReplyDeleteKing kenny got rid of him. There is a credible answer to why he's not good enough, plus u said it urself he was right to move on so if he was good enough Jamie why wouldn't we keep him
ReplyDeleteRight. So using your logic, Torres was also not good ehough. Kenny got rid of him too, didn't he?
ReplyDeleteLFc has too many midfielders, plus Poulsen is too old, so of course it was right to move him on. However, if he had stayed as backup I wouldn't have had a problem with it.
Compelling counter-argument. I'll need to think hard about how to counteract it. Let me think about it and I'll get back to you.
ReplyDeleteBased on Torres form since he left it was the right thing to do and I believe kenny would have loved to keep Torres only for his head to be turned by Chelsea. Poulsen is not the worst player ive ever seen playing for Liverpool but in my opinion the worst cm we had in the first team squad
ReplyDeleteBased on Torres form since he left it was the right thing to do and I believe kenny would have loved to keep Torres only for his head to be turned by Chelsea. Poulsen is not the worst player ive ever seen playing for Liverpool but in my opinion the worst cm we had in the first team squad
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was the right time for Torres to leave. Re Poulsen - you don't play 84 times for your national side if you're a crap CM. People need to get some perspective - Poulsen was and is a good player, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
ReplyDeleteFact are fun, but most often used in deceiving ways. If you want to be a moneyball smartiee, you should know your statistics abc first. The array in your sample is to way to low, and the statsitical signicance presented would be too low, and would should be determined as due to chance rather statiscal significant or even probably significant. Dip your head in shit, and I can go on to tell everyone people named Jamie are shitheads with 100% certainty.
ReplyDeleteGreat points, Gary. You don't play 84 times for your country if you're a rubbish player.
ReplyDeleteAnother pointless exersise in drivel,just to get attention for this site/shite.What next?
ReplyDeleteJole Cole a waste of money? No heres the proof? Laughable but predictable from the anti-lfc as per usual.
Poulsen by his own amission was poor last season. He was no where near the pace of the game in England and his passing range was laughable for a premier league player. THAT SAID I thought he played quite well during pre seaon. He made the odd error at corners etc but his overall game and confidence had become more positive. His short passing was slick and some of his long passing took me by surprise. He even seemed to be able to get close to opposition players.
ReplyDeleteI actually think we would have seen a better Poulsen this season had he stayed BUT there are no tears in my eyes now that he has left.
niall- the reason i used lucas as an example in my comments was to illustrate the fact that initially, both him and poulsen were not fan favourites, therefore were subject to negative comments.
ReplyDeletelucas, to his credit, stuck it out, worked hard and overcame this prejudice, to become a fan favourite that he is today.
i suppose my main point would be this.
at liverpool we expect a high standard. if a player comes in and doesnt make an immediate impact, we all jump on his back. look at joe cole. and to a lesser extent, look at jordan henderson. iv already heard and read various 'fan' comments about our recent signing from sunderland, questioning why we bought him, and questioning what he can actually bring to the club. unfair, in my opinion, considering that were only into game 3 of the EPL season. give the lad a chance.
the same thing applies to poulsen, and what the article's main point illustrates. if you actually look at the stats (and we all know how much jaimie loves his stats LOL), it shows that Poulsen wasnt actually as bad as we all took him for.
he just wasnt special, but he did the job he was brought in to do. in my opinion, this is not a justifiable enough reason to slate him as a bad player.
good luck Christian, as a reds supporter for over 20 years, i wish you good luck in the rest of your career.
you'll never walk alone.
<p><span>Poulsens pass success rate in a 'Top four fixture', against none other than the Champions Manchester United was in actual fact 93.42% his total percentage for the games he featured in was 82.08% - The overall team was 74.60% in them games.</span>
ReplyDelete</p>
I think the guy was unfairly dismissed by supporters, but our supporters do that all the time, whether they want to admit it or not, particularly if the player is not a local boy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think he was off the pace and did not appear to be 'breaking up' hardly enough opposition attacks. There's no need for the nastiness that supporters have written about him, even now he has gone. And these will be the same people talking about players needing to show loyalty.
To his credit, though, he had an outstanding game against Wolves, away, last season, and no one on here wanted to give him any credit for it at the time. I've seen this a few times over the years, N'gog, Babel and others would play well or score a great goal and their detractors would go silent. Poulsen came into that category.
Saying that, I am happy he has moved on, for us and for him, and hope he does well with his new club.
What I'm trying to get across to you is that since when did defining a good player only become relevant through stats? For one, you can't see who else was in the team, who the opposition were, did he come on as a sub or was he replaced when we won nevermind minutes played. You theory is flawed on too many levels.
ReplyDeleteActually. The stats mean nothing unless it is unique to that player. Those are team stats quoted. A player can be really bad but his team takes up the slack, that could mitigate his impact on the team too. Personally I don't think he is a bad player, and neither am I bigoted to think he isn't good enough for LFC, but I do agree he may be past his prime amidst a very trying period when creativity was sorely lacking in midfield. Which isn't something many CDMs can address...and which isn't something our current transfer policies have plugged. And now with Meireles gone as well, I really don't see much creativity left in the midfield which means we're going to jump on Lucas and say he's not good enough as he didn't provide that crucial assist? (a la Poulsen)
ReplyDeleteActually. The stats mean nothing unless it is unique to that player. Those are team stats quoted. A player can be really bad but his team takes up the slack, that could mitigate his impact on the team too. Personally I don't think he is a bad player, and neither am I bigoted to think he isn't good enough for LFC, but I do agree he may be past his prime amidst a very trying period when creativity was sorely lacking in midfield. Which isn't something many CDMs can address...and which isn't something our current transfer policies have plugged. And now with Meireles gone as well, I really don't see much creativity left in the midfield which means we're going to jump on Lucas and say he's not good enough as he didn't provide that crucial assist? (a la Poulsen)
ReplyDeleteYour argument is completely incorrect. Remember Poulsen mostly only played under Hodgson, which as we know played a very defensive game which Poulsen suited. He may have broken up their play but stifled any of our own play. For instance Alonso played this part particulary well, he managed to break up the oppositions play and contributed to the way Liverpool were able to move forward. Poulsen gave away the ball consistently and when he didn't he failed to give that decisive pass. Now with Adams you can already see Liverpool moving forward quicker and more aggressively. Yes you point out that Poulsen's primary role is the defensive side but a defensive midfielders role is a lot more than that, well it is when you're playing for Liverpool anyway.
ReplyDeleteAll you people saying things like 'Kenny got rid of him so he is crap', well Kenny got rid of Meireles as well, so that argument does not carry much weight.
ReplyDeleteAnd before people say Meireles asked for a transfer, it is because he thought he was getting less games, and less money, than other players in the team and, in my opinion, he asked for the transfer as the club probably did not want to be seen selling to Chelsea, again, one of our better and more popular players. If you offer someone a contract that is less than a player you have just bought from Sunderland, you should not be too surprised to see them ask to double their salary at Chelsea. Who wouldn't want to do that. Anyone here who says they wouldn't, at 28 years of age, is a liar.
Poulsen was a Roy Hodgson signing, yet we suffered an awful start, close to the bottom 4 after a few months
ReplyDeleteHow many of these games did Poulsen play? And if he didn't play many then why not? Did he not have the full confidence of the man who signed him?
Poulsen looked a solid player with us and remained professional throughout his stay with us, he did his best to work hard and tried to get into first team. He should be commended for his attitude when we compare some of the primadonnas about English football at the moment
Lucas was top tackler in Premier League last year, and had 83% passing accuracy. He is leading the tackling charts so far this year also - OptaJoe
None of us have access to full opta stats so hard to make a definitive comparison with Poulsen, but he was possibly just not needed
The basic stats are just not enough to judge a player by. Some people have the ability to actually judge a player by seeing him play live, some don't
Ashley Young got 3 assists last match. He merely stopped the ball at a short free kick for 2 of them, not exactly groundbreaking stuff!!!
What if he does that 10-12 times this year and smashes all assist records, does it really mean he is the most creative player ever in PL?? No
Funny how you reply to the comments you think you can answer.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is completely incorrect. Remember Poulsen mostly only played under Hodgson, which as we know played a very defensive game which Poulsen suited. He may have broken up their play but stifled any of our own play. For instance Alonso played this part particulary well, he managed to break up the oppositions play and contributed to the way Liverpool were able to move forward. Poulsen gave away the ball consistently and when he didn't he failed to give that decisive pass. Now with Adams you can already see Liverpool moving forward quicker and more aggressively. Yes you point out that Poulsen's primary role is the defensive side but a defensive midfielders role is a lot more than that, well it is when you're playing for Liverpool anyway.
If did okay in your eyes then why shouldn't he have stayed. Maybe if he did we would win 80% of our games- well according to your "stats" we might
ReplyDeleteFair comment But the basis in saying he was crap was misleaded but not good enough for Liverpool moving forward in my opinion. Good arctile again for a reason for debate
ReplyDeleteno i'm afraid that's conjecture, JK. Can you provide hard facts to support your claim that people would find something else to 'bitch about'. not everyone is as desperate to win an argument when they are so clearly in the wrong as you are.
ReplyDeletein any event you, I and everyone else on here knows his pass completion woul dbe fifty per cent ish, which is appalling.
JK - i don't need to counter argue something so unfathomably stupid as your article. i watch and judge with my own eyes.
ReplyDeletewhat i don't do, is ignore what i see with my own eyes at a football match and then root around for some stats to justify my ignorance.
i leave that to people like you.
You've done a similar article before, and I'm afraid you were wrong then and wrong again now.
ReplyDeletePoulsen made 12 league appearances. In 4 games he started with Lucas. In those 4 games only 3 goals were conceded
In 5 games he started without Lucas (i.e. sole defensive midfielder). In those 5 games, 7 goals were conceded.
In the other games he made substitue appearances: Bolton (came on 89 minute), Wigan (came on 73 minutes) and Chelsea (came on 84 minutes). In all those games Lucas was already on the pitch and Poulsen came on to play alongside him. We conceded 1 goal in those games. Not sure how much of that, if any, you can attribute to Poulsen's defensive midfield skills.
It can be argued then, that when we played two defensive midfielders, and therefore a more defensive team as a whole we conceded less, which makes sense. Without Lucas next to him though we conceded 7 goals in 5 games.
In Europe, he started 5 games next to Lucas, and in those games only 2 goals were conceded. Again 2 defensive midfielders in a defenisve team means we conceded less. In 1 game he played next to Spearing (again two defensive midfielders in the game) and we conceded no goals. In the two games Poulsen played on his own and 1 goal was conceded. So in Europe, he did ok on his own away to Utrecht and Steaua, but in the other six games he had a defensive midfielder enxt to him. In the game against Napoli we were losing 1-0, he went off after 65 minutes and Gerrard scored a hattrick after he went off.
As for win/draw/loss stats
In the PL - 6 wins with Poulsen in the team, althogh he only started 4 of them. 3 of the wins were when he partnered Lucas. Only one came wihtout Lucas. And in the two sub appearances Lucas was already on the pitch and Poulsens played about 10 minutes in total. His input into those games was nominal.
3 draws - 2 starts, 1 with Lucas starting alongside, conceding only 1 goal, and one game without Lucas, in whcih we conceded 2 goals (2-2 v Sunderland). In the sub appearance he came on at 73 minutes with the score already at 1-1.
3 Losses - 3 games started - 1 with Lucas, conceding 2, 2 without Lucas conceding 5.
In Europe -
4 wins - 4 starts, 4 with Lucas. Against Napoli when he went off and we scored 3 after he went off.
4 draws - 4 starts - 1 with Lucas, 1 with Spearing and 2 as sole DM. He did ok.
1 loss - Lucas and Poulsen started - 1 goal conceded.
Your stats without teh conctext are useless. In contex, youc an see that we conceded less and own more games when Lucas was also in the team. We performed worse when Poulsen was in the team as the sole DM without Lucas.
When Traore won the CL with liverpool, did that mean he was a good player?? when Diomede won the World cup with France, doesn't that mean he was a good player since both players won and the team won big ????
ReplyDeletemind it's an extrapolation but it work since you compating player and success of team....
Why have you deleted my post????
ReplyDeleteI beleive i could play in a strong liverpool side, stats would be good, by performances would e absoutly terrible, would u still praise me?
ReplyDeleteHe was not trusted enough to play in many games of real importance.
ReplyDeleteLets look at the games he started and the results
v Trabzonspor (Europa) 1 - 0 W
@ Trabzonspor (Europa) 2 - 1 W
v West Brom (League) 1 - 0 W
@ Birmingham (League) 0 - 0 D
@ Man United (League) 2 - 3 L
v Sunderland (League) 2 - 2 D
@ Utrecht (Europa) 0 - 0 D
v Blackpool (League) 1 - 2 L
@ Napoli (Europa) 0 - 0 D
v West Ham (League) 3 - 0 W
@ Steaua Bucharest (Europa) 1 - 1 D
v Utrecht (Europa) 0 - 0 D
@ Blackpool (League) 1 - 2 L
@ Wolves (league) 3 - 0 W
v Fulham (League) 1 - 0 W
v Sparta Prague (Europa) 1 - 0 W
Q SC Braga (Europa) 0 - 1 L
For a record of 7 Wins 6 draws and 4 losses - 8 of the 17 starts in Europa League and 6 of 9 league starts against bottom of the league competition.
-- With wins to mighty Trabonspor, West Brom, Wolves, Fulham, Fulham, and Sparta Prague
Notable team that he started again - Man United (loss) Chelsea (Win) Sunderland (Draw)
Shocking Losses to Blackpool x 2, and SC Braga.
The remaining data that you use to back up your assertions are based on appearance when he had a nominal impact on the game - win lose or draw.
It is very easy to see using these numbers that, even the manager who brought him into the team lost faith in him quite early on, and did not trust him against teams who were on a roughly equal footing.
Poulson was a poor buy, which made no long term sense and was by no means a peice of the jigsaw - as we were abject under Roy. I hate words like "this player is shite" -- but Poulson did not inspire confidence as Masch and Lucas does now - and our results with him in the starting line up were uninspiring. Only one result of his whole starting tenure was classed as a noteable result (the 2 - 0 win to chelsea, when we were on the back foot for most of the game despite the result) and the rest was . . . well . . . in the end, not good enough
It's true that people don't like it when statistics don't reaffirm their point of view.
ReplyDeleteFor example, someone might prove, through solid analysis, that Steven Gerrard and Torres starting for LFC made no statistically significant difference to the team performance.
If that didn't fit in with a person's personal beliefs, they would no doubt dismiss the argument with some nonsense about this not being the website of the Office of National Statistics, it's just a blog about football.
Seeking to identify the contribution of individual football players is certainly a worthwhile pursuit, however the complexity of this endeavour should not be under-estimated. The abstract of a paper titled “Is the Moneyball Approach Transferable to Complex Invasion Team Sports?" authored by University Business School Professor Bill Gerrard spells out the challenges.
ReplyDeleteThe paper considers the difficulties of transferring the Moneyball approach to more complex invasion team sports in which player performance is much more interdependent. Three problems are highlighted—the tracking problem (the identification, categorisation, and measurement of player actions), the weighting problem (the importance of player actions toward match outcomes), and the attribution problem (the allocation of individual contributions to joint and interdependent actions).
If data is to be analysed, perhaps this should be with regard to specific inputs to individual performance rather than outputs that are clearly hard to attribute, weight and track. In football there are two critical areas of performance that are under individual control:
Expertise, fitness and judgement that determine ball possession through intercepting, passing and receiving the ball,
Adherence to the rules of the game whereby infringement, or reaction to infringement, may determine ball possession, independent or irrespective of "ball skills"
What can be measured?
Intercepting, Passing & Receiving
Retained passes (number and % of total passes received from others),
Passing accuracy (number and % of total passes received by others),
Interceptions resulting in regaining possession (number and % of total intercepts),
Interceptions resulting in breaking down competitive movement but not in possession.
Infringements
Actual infringements (red, yellow, offside),
Consequence(s) of infringements (movement breakdown, territorial gain, goal, loss of team-member.
To borrow an expression more frequently associated with another sport, we might label these twin considerations as a player's ability to perform with Total Control Under Pressure (T-CUP). Whilst these certainly do not provide the full picture, they might negate accusations of pseudo-science or flawed thinking when considering mainly outcomes that are created by a team.
Bill Shankly once said: "Liverpool Football club exists not to make money, it exists to win trophies and be a source of pride for its supporters. It serves no other purpose." If the twin considerations suggested above relate to matters under individual control that serve to win games (and therefore to win trophies), creation of pride for supporters is also worthy of consideration.
Perhaps another area of measurement worth exploring, because of the immediate impact on crowd behaviour and the corresponding positive or negative reinforcing effects on player confidence and self-belief, might be summarised as reputational. Measures could be attributed under headings of damaging or enhancing as follows:
Reputational damage through deceptive and dishonourable behaviours to gain competitive advantage (feigning injury, diving, berating or abusing others [officials, own or opposition team members, fans, media]),
Reputational enhancement through honourable behaviours that demonstrate sportsmanship and 'spirit of the game' (putting ball out of play when opposing team member injured, applauding the performance of your opposition, 'washing dirty linen in private', taking responsibility for under-performance, putting the team ahead of the individual, demonstrating confidence without arrogance).
For those interested in reading more views on the use of metrics in football the following link is a good start (and is where I located the reference [...]
Its certainly not indisputable that he wasn't a failure, as you state, it may be your opinion, but your analysis isn't wholesome enough to claim that!
ReplyDeleteOne way in which I would critique your analysis is that you judge Poulsen as part of a defensive system or team that requires many other components to perform, the clean sheets he helped achieve may have been due to him, but they could just have easily been in spite of him, or indeed somewhere in beween these two extremes. In contrast, in your own analysis of attacking players you focus on their individual impact alone, ie. the assists and goals they provide (which in my opinion also has its faults).
Having said that I think he performed better than he was given credit for and was targetted by quite a few due to his association with Hodgson; but going forward he was never a realistic option for our squad.
I would also imagine that the majority of fans wish him all the best going forward with his career.
Can I confirm something from your stats...
ReplyDeletePoulsen is awarded a WIN for Napoli in the Europa League??
He was on the pitch for 65mins at which point we were 1-0 down.
Then he went off & Gerrard scored three in the last 15 minutes... er how did Poulsen contribute to that victory?
Poulsen is awarded a WIN for Chelsea when he was on the pitch for 6mins at the end, when we were already 1-0 ahead?
Poulsen is awarded a DRAW for Sunderland?
He went off after 62 mins at which point we were 2-1 down, after which Gerrard scored an equaliser.
Poulsen is awarded a WIN for Sparta Prague?
He went off after 65mins at which point the score was 0-0, after which Kuyt scored the only goal.
Poulsen is awarded a WIN for Bolton?
When he came on for just one minute, when we were already 1-0 ahead.
Can I ask why my post was deleted. It didn't contravene the comment policy. Is it just because I disagree with your article?
ReplyDeleteGary, I haven't deleted any of your comments. It may have slipped into a different page. Click your username and you'll find it.
ReplyDeleteSent from iPhone
On 1 Sep 2011, at 17:40, "Echo" <js-kit-m2c-1hn7v1urs4irl9hctr0598l3ie4k4dq9l4dotkcvkak2qjiu50m0> wrote:
</js-kit-m2c-1hn7v1urs4irl9hctr0598l3ie4k4dq9l4dotkcvkak2qjiu50m0>
Gary, you haven't posted any other comments today, unless you've posted under a different username. Your last comment posted under 'Gary' was here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.liverpool-kop.com/2011/08/im-confused-why-would-liverpool-want-to.html#jsid-1313925958-44
If you used a different username, let me know what it is and I'll look into it.
Pedantry. Poulsen appeared in those games. End of story.
ReplyDeleteInteresting read. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI posted a comment at about 2ish. It was on the thread as I re-read it and then about 5 minutes later it had gone. Pretty sure it was under my usual username.
ReplyDeleteHi, thank you for supplying the stats in your article. I was reading through the comments and thought i would like to contribute my 2cents worth of thoughts... I believed that each game won in a match depends on entire's team contribution.. some ppl contribute more while others lesser... No doubt that the stats looks good whenever he plays but we cannot deny the fact that probably in a particular match, the keeper's effort might have contributed 20%, defenders 30%, midfielders 20% and strikers 30% (Just an example btw).. if u breakdown individually to each players, probably poulsen's contribution could be only a few percents to each match as there are 11 players or more depending on substitutes used in each game contributing each time (not forgetting different players contribution to the match is different). I think in Economics term its call "free rider".
ReplyDeleteI've checked, and there is no evidence of you comment. It's possible you accidentally dfeleted it yourself. There is a comment from another user named Gary at 1.27pm, but his username is lowercase, and it's still live.
ReplyDeleteCan I assume from this you are admitting Hodgson got it wrong? Ian has after all stated Hodgson and Cecil wasted that money, and you replied with"Precisely"
ReplyDeleteNo you don't... Be honest,you thrive on being controversial,it's as obvious as the nose on your face. Is that a nose?
ReplyDeleteVery convenient i'd say...
ReplyDeleteYou prove it wasn't.
ReplyDeleteReally? Philip degen has been capped 46 times,does that make him a good player. (careful with this answer,Benitez signed Degen)
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to assess a players ability or contribution based on stats that involve 10 other players. To quote a win percentage does not highlight Poulsens positive, or negative, contribution to ANY game. Who's to say the goalkeeper didnt make several worldclass saves in games that came about from poulsen mistakes? Im not saying this happened but you are basing your argument on the contribution of 11 players. Whos to say that the players around him didnt try that little bit harder to compensate?
ReplyDeleteIm sure you will agree, as somebody that has "watched him in the flesh", he was pretty darn poor as footballers go. This is in the same way as people can see that Messi is pretty darn good! its objective, but the "majority" of liverpool fans were able to come to this same conclusion, regardless of whether he was hodgson signing.
I hold one memorable example of why poulsen was not good enough to make it at liverpool and that is the baros goal in our friendly against gala. Watch his "marking" of baros and that will give you your conclusion Jaimie!
Lies, damn lies and statistics!!
ReplyDeleteSame thing happened to me Jaimie
ReplyDeleteDid I in some way infringe on your comment policy?
I didn't delete it myself. I actually posted another post asking why my first got deleted, and that was deleted too. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteArabee - no comments have been deleted. Comments are threaded, so when people reply in a thread, comments drop onto the next page (only 50 comments per page). Check other pages for your comment; alternatively, click on your username and go through your post history.
ReplyDeleteWhy would I delete your comment? The only time a comment is deleted is if it contains insults/derogatory comments.
Sent from iPhone
On 1 Sep 2011, at 22:15, "Echo" <js-kit-m2c-1hn7v1urs4irl9hctr0598l3iee3eocnovs1gjvsbj79ick2cc90> wrote:
</js-kit-m2c-1hn7v1urs4irl9hctr0598l3iee3eocnovs1gjvsbj79ick2cc90>
It's so obvious though. Right through history and across all sporting codes, succesful teams have carried poor players. I'm not going to waste time giving examples. You will say that my arguements are baselss but it ihnk that yours are, using TEAM stats to judge an INDIVIDUAL player is not really any base for an arguement. I agree that we should look at how he does his job but that would be looking at his individual stats I.E % succesful tackles, interceptions and yes even pass completion, jsut becasue a player plays in a defensive position does not excuse him from the basics
ReplyDeleteAlso, was wondering if you could tell me where you get your stats, there are so many occasions I want to say things but don't have the evidence to back it up
Cheers
Gary - I figures out what happened. You were banned 6 months ago for something, and you posted your missing comment under the same account. When that happens, the post is held for moderation and doesn't go live.
ReplyDeleteThe comments you've today that are live must be on a different computer/IP address.
Anyway, I've made your comment live now and unbanned the your other account.
Gary - I've figured out what happened. You were banned 6 months ago for something (I checked the ban log), and you posted your missing comment under the same account. When that happens, the post is held for moderation and doesn't go live.
ReplyDeleteThe comments you've today that are live must be on a different computer/IP address.
Anyway, I've made your comment live now and unbanned the your other account.
I know coudln't understand either. As you said, they were there. Sorry
ReplyDeleteNo problemo. You're a valued contributor to the site, Arabee - I would never delete any of your comments; and if the situation arose where I had to delete one, I would tell you about it.
ReplyDeleteIt's true to say that regular/long-standing commentors get more leeway than newer commentors; you guys add great value to the site, and it's very much appreciated.
o problemo. You're a valued contributor to the site, Arabee - I would never delete any of your comments; and if the situation arose where I had to delete one, I would tell you about it.
ReplyDeleteIt's true to say that regular/long-standing commentors get more leeway; you guys add great value to the site, and it's very much appreciated.
well we wish well to all except torres maybe
ReplyDeleteYou are most certainly NOT consistent with your views.I refered to one of your articles where you stated you supported Kenny Dalglish 110% and in another article that you did not support the signing by Dalglish of Luis Suarez (as you believe him to be a cheat).This is not 110% support for Dalglish. You have also broke one of your own rules by calling into question the integrity of Luis Suarez.
ReplyDeleteHello Jaimie,
ReplyDeleteWhat u said is not wrong but its not exactly correct too. What u have done is to take the performance of the whole team for the games to evaluate 1 single player. What if in those games he played, Pepe was super and kept the team in the game? or Luis n Maxi were on song bagging goals to win the games? Or maybe Christian played for less than the full game in some of the matches u used as statistics?
A player should be evaluated as a player, if u want to evaluate him, rate him individually in each game he played in...how much tackles he made, how much passes he completed, etc. That will be clear to all.
Agree he took a bit too much sticks unfairly when he adapted slower and was associated with Roy as a failure but i do think we have much better prospects in the middle of the park player capabilities and potential wise to release him.
There is a saying, if someone ask you to eat S*** because they say its ggod for you, would you do it?
ReplyDeleteI know it's KK and we all think a great deal about him but we have to believe something just because he says so? Come on.
Fuck you jamie you sorry excuse for a journalist...i bet paulsen paid you to write this bullshit article just to cover up how crap his been for us !
ReplyDeleteHe was dire, didn contribute, gave the ball away constantly
ReplyDeleteFrom memory vs Sunderland he handballed for a penalty which cost us points plus not chasing back when we lost to the might of Blackpool at Anfield...
ReplyDeleteWe actually loaned Aquilani to Juventus for no fee and they gave us Poulsen for £5m - well done Purslow. No wonder we almost went under with business acumen like that...He was about as mobile as a glacier.