18 Jun 2015

Debunking LFC Myths [No 18]: Christian Poulsen was a 'disaster' for Liverpool

For some reason, Christian Poulsen continues to be one of the most maligned Liverpool signings of the last five years, and the prevailing view seems to be that the Dane was a flop for Liverpool. Well, this is totally unfair because, as I will illustrate, Poulsen actually had a positive impact for the Reds overall.

Fans have been spouting the same old cliches about Poulsen ever since he left the club, i.e. he's rubbish/slow/poor at tackling etc, and just yesterday, someone posted the following comment on this site:

"[Poulsen] was a disaster and only started 10 games. Yes he only cost 5 million but that doesn't matter because he wasn't a success, so that £5m was wasted".

This is a typical example of bandwagon-jumping, and spouting an opinion that's totally unfounded, and without factual basis:

* Poulsen was *not* a 'disaster' in the slightest, and there's zero evidence to support that view. There IS, however, copious evidence to prove that Poulsen had a positive specific, measurable impact on the team.

* A defensive midfielder's primary role is to break up play; protect the back four; stop other teams from scoring, and prevent Liverpool from losing.

* Poulsen was NOT a creative midfielder, so it's unfair to base his effectiveness on scoring goals and/or creating chances/assists.

* Lucas Leiva has the same primary role as Poulsen; is he judged on anything but his defensive ability? No. Why, then, should Poulsen be maligned to this day for doing exactly the same job?

The factual truth is that Poulsen did a great job for the team when called upon, and the stats make a complete mockery of the barracking he constantly receives.

Christian Poulsen: Team Stats

* Total Appearances for LFC: 21

* Minutes on pitch: 1469

* Wins: 10 (48%) | Draws: 7 (33%) | Defeats: 4 (19%)

* Team goals scored: 25 (1.1 per game)

Team goals conceded: 14 (1 every 1.5 games | 0.6 per game)

* Total games unbeaten: 17 (81%)

* Clean sheets: 12 (57%)

* League only: 6 wins/4 draw in 12 apps (unbeaten in 83% of games) | 6 clean sheets (50% of games)

Personal Stats: League Only (Only available stats)

* Blocks/tackles/interceptions/clearances: 85 in 12 games (1 every 8 minutes)

* As a comparison: in the Prem this season, Lucas's average = 1 Block/tackle/interception/clearance every 9.5 minutes.

* Passing accuracy: 84%

* Chances Created: 9.6

ANALYSIS

When Poulsen played, Liverpool:

* Were unbeaten in 81% of games (Overall season average: 70% of games unbeaten)

* A mere 14 goals conceded in 21 games (One goal every 104 minutes)

* Achieved clean sheets in 57% of games (overall, the club managed 23 clean sheets for the season; Poulsen played in 12 of those games)

* Lost only 19% of games (Overall season loss average: 29%)


In my view, these figures indisputably prove that Poulsen had a positive specific, measurable impact on the team. His role was primarily defensive so it is no coincidence that with him in the team, Liverpool performed better defensively (and better than the overall season average).

As such, to describe the Dane as a 'disaster' for Liverpool is total nonsense, and 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. trashed purely because he was a Roy Hodgson signing.

I'm not saying that Poulsen was a world-beater, but he was NOT a 'poor' player, and he did NOT perform badly for Liverpool. Fans should be fairer in their appraisal of the Dane as he clearly deserves a lot more respect than he currently receives.

That said, in light of the stats above, I'd be interested to hear people justify their negative views of Poulsen. I suspect that it'll be the same old story though: fans just turning up saying he's 'rubbish', without providing any evidence to support such views.

The ironic thing is that, right now, Liverpool desperately need a defensive-midfielder of Poulsen's effectiveness (i.e. a player who can help the Reds achieve similar defensive stats).

Author: Jaimie K



126 comments:

  1. Yes my favourite series is back!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cant remember Poulsen ever being man of the match he was too slow and error prone he was not a Liverpool standard player but in saying that they were times to forget.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can't actually remember much about Poulsen to be honest but I do know that fans (including myself at times) judge a player and make up their own mind before they even kick a ball.

    As the stats shows he was clearly an effective player, but we could have done better in that department and I still think we need an upgrade on Lucas.

    Defensive midfielders often are overlooked because of their lack of goals and assists but that is not their main role in the team. That is why attacking minded players are expensive compared to defensive players and goalkeepers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wait. No mention of James F Milner or The Mercenary! Jaimie are you feeling ok?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nicolas Chamberlain2:47 pm, June 18, 2015

    You can show stats to back up your opinion but we all have eyes Jaimie.
    Poulson was rubbish. To slow, to static; mediocre.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You have zero evidence to back up these false assertions about Poulsen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I suppose Konchesky would also command that stats since he's in the team.

    ReplyDelete
  8. we desperately need to sign a right back, left back and top class goal getting forward or top class striker. if we sell sterling for £50m, which we will, that will be fantastic business for a player who has immense pace and skill but not much end product and very inconsistent. make no doubt though, with Aguero, silva and toure sterling will be a goldmine, just like he were with Suarez alone, but that doesnt mean with the £50m we cant replace him. Douglas Costa, Roberto Firmino, Alex Texeria, Yarmolenko, Konoplyanka, theres many players out there with far better end product at higher levels than sterling like Champions league and europa. i would buy Yarmolenko for £20m and if possible Vietto for £14M. then add Clyne for £12m and digne for £10m and we should look a better team without one of our 'decent' academy products. ballon dor winners like Owen and cl winners like gerrard and carragher have come from our academy and if we can get 50m for sterling who has won zero thats great.


    if we buy Yarmolenko £20m, Digne £10m, Clyne £12m, and Vietto £14m


    ------------------------------Mingolet
    Clyne-----------------Skrtel--------------Sakho----------Digne
    --------------------------------Can
    ------------Milner-----------------------Hendo
    -------------------------------Coutinho
    -----------------Yarmolenko-------------Vietto


    we might just win some of those away games

    ReplyDelete
  9. That is not a counter-argument. I've provided facts that suggest that Poulsen was very effective for Liverpool; you've provided nothing except inaccuracy and falsehood.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Frankie Fletcher2:49 pm, June 18, 2015

    Your stats show that the team did better while he was in the team but it does not show his personal stats i.e. clearances, interceptions, tackles, duals won, arial duals won etc... (this could be coincidental correlation)


    Also your stats don't show who the teams opponents were in those games (they may have been our easiest 21 fixtures).


    Posts them sort of stats and maybe the jury can make a more solid verdict. :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Too many variables to say he had a 'positive impact'. He was replacing a world class DM in Mascherano. This, along with the fact that he and others came into the team and played a style of football I never wish to see at Anfield ever again, is why he's regarded as having a negative impact. He was, in my opinion, a reasonable squad player but not up to the standard of what had come before him.
    You can pick out any player over a particular season and look at their stats to say they had a 'negative' or 'positive' impact. Lets take, for example, Aly Cissohko. Last season, I would imagine the stats for his win percentage, goals scored with him in the team, etc are very favourable. Yet, would you associate him having a 'positive impact' on the team? Was he part of the reason we won so many games? I would bet most people would answer no to that question.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm surprised it only took six or so comments for the same old excuses to be wheeled out. It's textbook: when someone disagrees with a statistical conclusion, they demand a drill-down to the nth degree. When they agree with stats, they accept them straight away.

    Even if I provide stats for what you say, someone else will come along and try and add further exceptions, and they'll keep doing that until a stat arises that supports their view.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nicolas Chamberlain2:55 pm, June 18, 2015

    Those stats prove nothing more than a flawed view on Poulson's time playing for LFC. No unforced errors, no stats about losing possession etc. Not even stats about his totall passes nor his tackling rate. Only stats about the team.
    You can't say you debunked this myth.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bring back poulsen,djimi traore,and paul konchesky I say!

    ReplyDelete
  15. HA what utter tosh, How have you provided facts that poulsen was effective?! you have selected the TEAMS performance when poulsen played and directly attributed it to him, where are poulsens stats, My granny could stand in the corner of the field for barca and not touch the ball yet the teams stats with her in the team would still be strong.. is that an argument for my grannys effectiveness? of course not.. you have to look at the players performance within the team and poulsen like my granny is just not good enough

    ReplyDelete
  16. Again: you have nothing to back up your negative view about Poulsen. I have provided factual stats that show that, defensively, Liverpool performed well with Poulsen in the team.

    All the other stats you mention are irrelevant: the fact is, with Poulsen in the team, Liverpool did excellently as a defensive force.

    Poulsen is a defensive midfielder, ergo he clearly did well for Liverpool.

    The myth is well and truly debunked; if you can providfe evidence to suggest that Poulsen made errors, and generally performed badly, then do so.

    If you can't, your view on this issue has zero merit.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Frankie Fletcher3:03 pm, June 18, 2015

    I wouldn't say that is the nth degree i'd say they were a standard level of detail people use to asses a players impact on a team. I can't remember him being amazing and I can't remember him being exceptionally poor either, I'd just like maybe a comparison to similar players to gauge how effective he personally was.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Theycallmemrburt3:03 pm, June 18, 2015

    He ran as though he was underwater. He covered the ground like a dead tortoise chasing a snail.

    Poulsen reminded me of Robbie Savage in his plomp, he was all energy and fouls. Trouble is he also reminded me of Robbie Savage at Derby, the will was there but the body...........
    Actually the problem might be that he reminded me of Robbie savage.......... I'm gona go and have a little think... :)

    In conclusion I think Hodgson was right to drop the man who was supposed to replace Lucas..... with Lucas.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm not big into stats but I watched him play and he was beyond poor

    ReplyDelete
  20. Are you not embarrassed by this view? You have absolutely no evidence to back this up. Saying 'I watched him, therefore he's poor' means nothing. It's totally subjective, and therefore unreliable.

    The team and personal stats totally debunk your opinion, which has zero merit *unless* you can provide some kind of evidence to back it up.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Football is about opinions too. Stats and evidence are not always possible but it doesn't mean an opinion is not true.
    An example off the top of my head, Sheringham was a player I always admired (shame he went Utd) and was widely recognised that he was not a fast player but fast in the mind. He always that one step ahead of the opposition by having great anticipation and reading of the game. How can this be proven with stats?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I do not recall much about Poulsen and there were not that many highlights from his LFC days. The only thing I remember is him sticking his arm out in the box and conceding a blatant pen. But, then again, the team was poor under Roy and there was absolutely no inspiration. I remember being happy about his signing when he came but it did not work out.


    BTW, Jaimie, curious to know, how many of those games were under Roy and how many under Kenny?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nice use of similie, but your descriptions prove nothing.

    The stats show that Liverpool performed defensively well with Poulsen in the team, and his personal stats also show that he performed well.

    As for 'fouls' - in the league, Poulsen conceded on foul every 49 minutes, which is basically one per game, so how does that make him 'all fouls'?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Stats and facts always hold more weight than opinion, which is why everything/everyone on the planet is classified according to objective facts, not someone's opinion.

    There's a reason why eyewitness testimony in a court of law is basically worthless: perception is not reality.

    In this case, people arguing that Poulsen was 'poor' have no leg to stand on unless they provide some form evidence/example to back that up, especially in the face of actual facts that show the team performed well with him in it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 15 apps under Hodgson; 6 under Dalglish.

    ReplyDelete
  26. An egregious oversight on my part.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What dark wizardry is this.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Nicolas Chamberlain3:20 pm, June 18, 2015

    You can reapeat that over and over again... ''zero merit, inaccuracy, falsehood'' or that my view is negative. The fact is that your stats don't back up your claim. Stats about the team don't say much about the individual performance of Poulson. Maybe he was surrounded during these games by players who made sure that Poulson wouldn't look as bad as he really was;)

    ReplyDelete
  29. When judging Konchesky, he should be assessed fairly, just like everyone else, and not just dismissed because it's fashionable to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  30. What sorcery is this? You jest, surely, in preaching fairness and rationality?

    ReplyDelete
  31. It was sheer dumb luck, I promise...

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think the games are too few to make an accurate judgement on him. Under Roy we were poor, so any losses and draws cannot be solely attributed on him whereas under Kenny we were good so any wins might not be held on him. He did not even play a full season for the club so it is tough to say whether he was good or not just like for Borini or Illori, you cannot say they were bad because they have barely played.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 1.1 goals a game seems a defensive team. Easier to have good defensive stats if most of the team is set up to defend.

    ReplyDelete
  34. How does this change anything? Poulsen's primary role is to defend; he clearly did his job.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I don't think it was just me that thought he was a disaster Jaimie, the first thing Dalglish did when he became manager was get rid of Poulsen. The fact that he only started ten games and lasted one season says it all. I remember watching him play and the games seemed to pass him by. Shame really cos when he was at Seville I thought he was a good player, I just think we got him a few years too late.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Just saying, if your a DM in a team where full backs are forbidden to cross the half way line, the formation is rigid, midfielders never take chances going forward, your stats would be better. 1.1 goals over a season is 41.8, I make that a defensive team.

    Mascherano could have played DM in the team 2 years ago ( 101 goals) but the style was more open & his stats probably wouldn't have been as good as Poulsens

    ReplyDelete
  37. New managers often get rid of the players brought in under the previous regime, so it's hardly surprising that KD let Poulsen go. He was 30, and clearly didn't fit the club's youthful strategy.

    And he was not a disaster in any way, shape or form, and to continue peddling that myth just makes you look vindictive.

    If you can provide some rudimentary evidence to support the contention that Poulsen was a 'disaster' for LFC, then I'm listening.

    Adopting the collective opinion of alleged fans you've never even met is not evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Liverpool almost won the league with Aly Cissokho heavily involved, doesn't make him good.

    ReplyDelete
  39. ...maybe the last line alludes to why this has been written in the first place - that we need a defensive midfielder - otherwise.... what's the flipp*n' point of the article....?


    ..the geezer's gone, we've moved on and we play a different game altogether - one which gave us all a hard on (or wettness, for the females among us) during 2013/14....


    .....so Jaimie....are you now gonna 'spin' that the Spanish Inquisition was good for Apple's share price..........

    ReplyDelete
  40. The thing is, it wasnt until Hamann took over the CL final in 2005 until he got the recognition he deserved. Now Everyone agrees how important he is. Same goes for Poulsen but I stopped discussing yesterday because there was obviously no point. I think Hodgson was theated severely unfairly by a lot of supporters. And sacking him was probably the first mistake FSG made

    ReplyDelete
  41. You're entitled to your opinion, but when you have such a strong negative view about a player, it's basically worthless unless you can back it up when asked.

    People shouldn't just go around casting negative aspersions about players (or indeed anything), unless these apsersions are true.

    You repeatedly say that Poulsen was 'poor', but that view has absolutely no merit. Sorry, it doesn't. You're just perpetuating a damaging myth which has no foundation in fact.

    I could go around saying 'Luis Suarez was poor most of the time', and it would be ridiculous for me - in the face of contrary factual evidence' - to persist with that view just because it's my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think we were spoilt with Mascherano, so once Poulsen came in to take over it looked alot worse than it really was. but overall the stats that have been quoted point to a defensive team being defensive. Also the team he fielded against were not exactly know how their goal scoring ability

    ReplyDelete
  43. That's not how it works. I've clearly stated that Liverpool performed effectively *defensively* with Poulsen in the team.

    You've made a claim about an entire season.

    Cissokho's impact should be judged based on his appearances for the team, not an entire season (he didn't feature for an entire season)

    ReplyDelete
  44. If they stats hold more weight than opinion then Lovren is without a doubt the leagues best defender surely you cannot disagree the evidence is there.

    ReplyDelete
  45. JK, I really didn't picture ya as a Dundee fanboy...

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yes, I do disagree with that. The CIES study is nonsense as it only uses 3 stats to judge central defenders: Distribution, recovery, and rigour.



    * There's no consideration of tackles, blocks, interceptions, duels (aerial or ground) etc.

    * Distribution is not a defensive quality.


    * What is 'rigour'? Sounds like nonsense to me, and is not quantified or explained in CIES' study notes.

    * The actual stats used to determine the placing are also not divulged.

    It's as ridiculous a conclusion as Sterling being more valuable than Suarez, which is also one of CIES' flawed conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Although i will say against MUTD at OT, he finished with 75% tackles won and a whopping 93.42% passing from 76 passes but we lost 3-2 so i blame it all on him

    ReplyDelete
  48. One of my favourite movies of the '80s! I'm a big fan, and the quote in my profile is arguably a very profound and accurate description of modern life.

    ReplyDelete
  49. It also proves you can twist numbers to tell many stories.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I'm not twisting anything. I've used the standard, widely accepted core stats to judge Poulsen. CIES have used used stats that have no real bearing on a defender's effectiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Back it up with what though, if I gave you statistics it could say he had 100% pass completion but if he only made 4 passes and only passed it two yards it doesn't really tell the full story. I've watched the likes of Hamamn, mascharano and more recently Lucas play the same role over the last few years and been impressed with there contribution even though mostly it went unseen, a interception here a tackle there or a block, Matic this season has been immense and is one of Chelsea's most important players now, I appreciate a good defensive midfielder and believe they are worth there weight in gold. Unfortunately for me, Poulsen wasn't up to the task.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Not saying you are but Poulsens minutes in our wins he did come off the bench a few times the teams we beat with him playing is a factor also how many were away etc.

    ReplyDelete
  53. It's a line my dad used frequently at the dinner table when I was a boy to describe my mum's cooking :-)

    ReplyDelete
  54. 82.08% passing accuracy and 60% tackles won in the premier league over 10 of his 12 appearances (couldn't get stats for the whole 12) but in those 10 games we lost the H&A to Blackpool

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hoges had a tv series in the 70s and early 80s us in oz loved it he is a very funny man.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Well, with all due respect, you're wrong. Poulsen's defensive stats prove you're wrong, as does the team's defensive performance with him in it.

    ReplyDelete
  57. He'll be cup tied.

    ReplyDelete
  58. For LFC Aly had an 85% tackle rate and 80% passing. As such he was statistically a better defensive player than Poulsen

    ReplyDelete
  59. You're kidding, right? Based on two stats, one of which has nothing to do with defending, you conclude that Cissokho was a 'better defensive player than Poulsen'?

    I've heard it all now.

    ReplyDelete
  60. These are league stats only but
    Cissokho/Poulsen, App 15/12, TKL 85%/64.5%, CLR 55/7, INT 17/21, Fouls 10/16.
    youve already put forth Poulsens stats so in Cissokhos 15 league games LFC went 10/3/2 which is 86.6% undefeated when AC played.

    ReplyDelete
  61. What exactly is your point? If Liverpool were unbeaten in 86% of games with Cissokho in the team, then that proves that during the time he was on the pitch, he wasn't as bad as fans make out, just like Poulsen.

    I'm not comparing the two players; you are.

    In any event, I've already defended Cissokho in a similar manner to this Poulsen article:

    http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2014/01/jimmy-case-cissokho-not-good-enough-for-liverpool-fc.html

    ReplyDelete
  62. Settle Grettle. I was just poking fun at the original post of LFC winning with AC doesn't make him a good player. you jumped in and sniped my comment, so i backed it up. so please don't come at me with the "what's you points".
    I'm here posting for shigs and giggles so calm down, I don't believe 90% of the stuff i write either!
    Personally i'm happy they are both gone :D

    ReplyDelete
  63. Your main argument for Poulsen is that the team won more games with him and that he played effectively.


    I'm not arguing for or against him.


    My question for you is:


    Who was he playing against?


    For instance... were the games we lost with him against all top 4 opponents? Did we beat any top 7 opponents with him?


    I think we'd all argue that a good performance against Chelsea is more valuable than a good performance against a team such as Bolton.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ha Ha, enjoyed the first paragraph. Tho, i don't rate Lucas higher than poulsen in my honest opinion

    ReplyDelete
  65. That's not a knife...

    ReplyDelete
  66. Just to be clear i'm not trying to argue just trying to clarify, why was my comment removed?
    As i mentioned in it im all about fun and banter, so when it comes to me actually looking up stats its usually for a sarcastic reason as personally i think Poulsen and Cissokho were both rubbish and we could and should have done alot better than those two.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Ok looking at the policy i can see some slight grounds for removal but come on man im Australian! you cant go bringing the Paul Hogan and not give me a little wiggle room :D

    ReplyDelete
  68. Wow. I thought I was the only person in the world who held this view.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Blimbo
    It's because Christian Poulsen and their hatred Roy Hodgson by many supporters, nothing else. It was the same with Joe Cole and Konchesky.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I have my eyes and my mind which are both real.stats i agree are important but not everything.you have given team stats and not poulsens.if poulsen played for Bayern Munich and the teams stats were good would that make poulsen a good player?no it would not.and no I'm not slightly embarrassed.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Linda Kozlowski not bad either :)

    ReplyDelete
  72. So Poulsen was a not quite terrible player in a pretty terrible team with an absolutely terrible manager.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Nope it looks like there two of ye:)

    ReplyDelete
  74. Milner is a good player, do not understand the stick he is getting from some fans. But that's just my opinion thus proving Stuart's point.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Obvious move on the surface for Kono but I have no faith at the moment.... Better and cheaper no doubt than markovic who did zero.................

    ReplyDelete
  76. No. BR will install him at striker given his 'tactical ' genius...

    ReplyDelete
  77. Ayre is trying to negotiate with him to pay us to play this season.......

    ReplyDelete
  78. Swap Kono and Ojo for selling Lallana who did very little for all that cash..............

    ReplyDelete
  79. This is a wind up .....…..or you have lost your marbles

    ReplyDelete
  80. Except if I use stats and facts to defend Sakho, I'm called stupid and clueless.

    I smell hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  81. If he plays 10 minutes in a game, does that mean he gets credit for being part of the winning team for the day based on JK's stats?

    ReplyDelete
  82. And what do you think. His ex employer threated him: You can sign for Stoke or Tottenham or any other club on the world but not for Liverpool.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Excellent comment!

    ReplyDelete
  84. So, how can he refuse then the new contract? In January 2014 i knew he was not able to go against the owner because of his family, relatives stay in Ukraine.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I have a feeling somebody makes fools of all of us. It's like Orvel's book, we have to forget what happened 18 months ago. Like we was never interested in this guy. Maybe the british supporters are more cool, but they play with our simple logic. I gave up a few days ago because i can't stand this torture anymore. The only explanation is: everything is paralised at LFC. Brendan lost his voice in transfers, if he ever had. Ayre are scared from the owners to ask anyrhing. The owners are not interested anymore. Please sell us, stop with this madness. West Ham, Swansea, Stoke owners care more about their clubs and know much more about football. They will take ayew, Kono and other quality foreign players for free.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Exactly. We need owners who are interested in football. My knowledge about baseball is same like their about football. ZERO!!!

    ReplyDelete
  87. My Mum used to say that about her own cooking

    ReplyDelete
  88. I agree.
    Remember the thread about LFC being better off without Suarez?
    Factually accurate when looking at the win/lose figures.
    Completely discredited when suarez returned from his ban.
    These measurements are sometimes better used in context with other factors.
    Skrtyl was one of our most accurate passers last season. Does that nean he's a better passer than, say, Coutinho?
    No. He makes easier passes. But figures don't lie do they? His passing figure is specific and measurable though....

    ReplyDelete
  89. One final comment then Jaimie, and this is a genuine question. If he was so good why didn't he play more games and last more than one season? Hodgson bought him then after so many games stopped playing him, Dalglish who I think watches just about every home game decided the first thing he was gonna do was get rid of him when he became manager. Let's be honest Jaimie, we all think we know what we're talking about when it comes to football but I'm pretty sure the current England manager and Kenny Dalglish, a footballing legend know more about spotting a player than you or I.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Statistics can be manipulated one way or another to suit whatever agenda a person is trying to push, if we believed the stats Joe Allen is the best player in the world but obviously we know that doesn't tell the full story.

    ReplyDelete
  91. 4eva LFC, LFC 4eva11:23 pm, June 18, 2015

    You use SG, Carra and Suarez in your analysis of why he is a good manager but let me tell you he never managed any of those three SG was a legend before Rodger Ramjet came along as was Carra and as for Suarez he did what ever he wanted and you want to tell me that Ramjet had anything to do with his valuation, oh thats right Ramjet came on and scored all those goals for him. As for Cortinho, give it time he will figure it out soon enough when he realises he is the only Brazilian playing in the England team.I forgot he has managed Can well playing him out of position as well as Aspas, Borini and Ballo as a lone striker, genius isn't he your right BR is fantastic, that's why the best want to play for him, Milner, Ings, Bodgan, and now Gomez and Clyne, please let me apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Why do you persist with twisting things? This is totally wrong. The Suarez stats were accurate *at the time*, and his subsequents goalscoring record doesn't change that.

    The figures were not 'discredited' in the slightest. My argument was that for time period selected, Liverpool were statistically better than Suarez, and that is correct, so please stop twisting my words.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I haven't argued that Poulsen is some kind of world-beater, so the question is irrelevant. My point is that Poulsen was not 'terrible, or 'poor', or a 'disaster' (or whatever negative terms you want to use) for Liverpool; he was an effective DM, and the stats prove that.

    You and others diss him without any proof whatsoever, which is why your opinion on the issue has no merit.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Why do you persist in calling my take on your comments as twisting your words?
    My argument was that those stats were meaningless. They were used irc to back up your view that Suarez wasn't as important to LFC as some made out.
    I didn't say the figures were discredited, in fact I made a point of saying that they were accurate.
    My view is that your CONCLUSIONS were discredited. Whilst we were statistically better without Suarez for the time period you selected, that gave in my view the impression that you were arguing that we would have been better off without him, a view I did not share despite the stats.
    I argued all along that stats only show PART of the story, and still do. Which is why Ignoring Poulsen's individual stats and basing conclusions about his performance level solely on win/lose stats is questionable in my book

    ReplyDelete
  95. The stats are not meaningless, that's the point.

    For the time period analysed, it's absolutely correct to say that Liverpool were better without Suarez. Just because his goal-record subsequently improved doesn't make the conclusion reached *at that time* wrong.

    As a comparison: If I argue that Liverpool were poor with Mignolet from August to December last season, the fact that he improved after Christmas doesn't negate the initial conclusion. It still remains the case that Liverpool were poor with Mignolet from August to December.

    Whether you shared the view is not really relevant. For the time period I analysed, Liverpool did - as a matter of provable fact - perform better without Suarez.

    ReplyDelete
  96. And people say we have the most knowledgeable fans in the world...
    Staggering.

    ReplyDelete
  97. But the Daily Mail said it was £8m...

    ReplyDelete
  98. I'll never need stats to tell if a player is good or not, I'll just use my eyes. I saw all of Poulsen's games and like the other 45,000 watching, we all had our head in our hands. He was out of his depth. You should try going to Anfield and watching games

    ReplyDelete
  99. No brainer skilful player who will appreciate playing for the Reds. He's also a LFC supporter on a free what more do they want?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Ah JK, ya frigthen shit outta me!


    The scene which had me in the most stitches is when Ned the native says, 'ahhh no you can't take my photograph'
    -'why, are you scared it will take your spirit away?'
    'no, you got the lens cap on!'

    ReplyDelete
  101. 4eva LFC, LFC 4eva12:29 am, June 19, 2015

    Who says that? maybe just you, this is my opinion just like when you write on here, all the evidence shows that he is buying British this is why i stated this will never happen, he can not manage world class players and the evidence is there, he never has and the ones he has, have drop in form, again my opinion but i guess only the likes of you Mike are entitled to one my apologizes.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Oscar nominated script, oddly.

    ReplyDelete
  103. The stats you had about Suarez being accurate at the time doesn't matter. All it proves is the limit of stats. Stats don't tell the whole story. Stats are suggestive. I recently read an interview with one of the statisticians at Bayern Munich and he basically spoke about how stats viewed in a vacuum are worthless and that they only consider stats with game footage. That is to say that successful passes do not interest them but successful passes whilst under pressure do.

    Statistics offer facts, but they don't offer much in the way of insight. Statistics, like all raw data, still has to be interpreted. The fact that you argued Liverpool would be better without Suarez just shows the shallowness of data when presented flatly without sufficient analysis. A simple glimpse at Suarez made it clear he was our best player for a couple of years even before his final season. The idea that non-statistical analysis is worthless is bizarre. What do you think scouts did before the statistical revolution? Do you think it was names out of a hat?

    ReplyDelete
  104. I think we're bound to end up spunking £20m on Konoplyanka or Ayew in a year's time. Would be vintage Liverpool.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Also, is there a site where you discuss movies and shows? I'm having GoT withdrawals at the moment...

    ReplyDelete
  106. Ok i guess no reason for removing my comment then

    ReplyDelete
  107. No, he wont. Cheap dig Ron.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Which actually meant a big fat zero overall.
    As I said, the fact is irrefutable. The point of stating it for it's own sake is still missing from your rebuttal.
    You were using the fact to support an argument that it was no big deal losing Suarez to a ban. A large number of people disagreed.
    The gist of the thread was:
    Why are people bemoaning the Suarez punishment, we perform better without him
    It may even have been one of your infamous 'Debunking' threads, though I could be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Precisely.

    ReplyDelete
  110. The pitchers do but i understand where your comin from.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Eyewitness testimony worthless?
    News to the legal profession, and to the Police.
    They form an essential part of the process, backed by the facts and forensics.
    None are excluded from cases or considered 'worthless'

    ReplyDelete
  112. It's easy to say the stats don't lie, and they don't.
    It's the conclusion which the stats suggest which is open to interpretation
    Fabregas (30) has scored/assisted more goals than Xavi(22) or Iniesta (22) in 5 seasons 2008-13
    This is the JK method for measuring midfield performance. Can you say that he is a better player?
    Rooney and Ings scored within a single goal of each other last season. In simple terms, they had pretty much the same specific measurable impact
    So is Ings as good a goalscorer as Rooney?
    What about the quality of chances? What about Rooney taking penalties when Ings didn't? What about Utd being Top 4 and Burnley bottom 3?
    Bare stats tell you something. But not by any means everything, and certainly they aren't the absolute arbiter of a player's worth or ability

    ReplyDelete
  113. I think it's a perception thing, rather than a measurable thing. For example, I thought Mascherano was all fouls, I didn't like him at all. Now he's the blueprint for a DM. I also thought Owen was a clumsy little shit who fell over every blade of grass, the most frustrating player of recent memory, but only because I expected him to score every time he touched the ball.
    I remember Poulson being a passenger, playing dour football in a dour team. There was nothing to be happy about when Hodgson was manager and I think all of that ended up falling on Poulson. Unfairly of course, now that we've seen the stats. But I don't think stats can change perceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  114. These stats are WRONG!

    You claim that in the league Poulsen was only involved in two defeats. In fact, he played when we lost to Man Utd and twice against Blackpool(!!!!)

    In addition, two of the 'victories' you attribute to Poulsen's stats involved him coming off the bench on 89 minutes & 84 minutes with LFC winning and the scoreline staying exactly the same.

    His 'measurable impact' in both of those games was zero based on your statistical analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  115. The quip is a outcome of built up frustration over 4 poor transfer windows and an utter disaster of a season capped off by a collapse in the last 8 games.....sorry; its just so maddening..........

    ReplyDelete
  116. Theycallmemrburt10:26 pm, June 19, 2015

    Yes, yes my similes are like a.......... naa :)

    sorry my English was off. I meant to say 'in his plomp, Poulsen reminded me of a young Robbie Savage all energy and fouls.'

    Fast forward to two years ago and Poulsen lacked the energy or legs to actually commit the fouls his heart so craved and desired. In many ways very much like Gerrard last season, so yes on that count you are right.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Theycallmemrburt10:35 pm, June 19, 2015

    Glad you liked it. You really dont rate Lucas do you :) . I don't agree with your opinion on Lucas but I'll live :)

    ReplyDelete
  118. About as funny as cramp

    ReplyDelete
  119. The pieces are beginning to fall into place if that one of your favourite films

    ReplyDelete
  120. Only to those not a gifted a true sense of humour.

    ReplyDelete
  121. The inaccuracies and omissions from stats are commonplace on here. Our host needs to check where he sources his stats from IMO

    ReplyDelete
  122. not sure about that one. It looks like FSG Are as ambition-less as BR with them free signings and bargain English buys

    ReplyDelete
  123. Ojo look s miles ahead of Raheem and he has more successful take-ions than ibe and raheem

    ReplyDelete
  124. AYre wants to go somewhere for negotiations. he must fly and spend some nights in exotic hotels. now that Kono is free that means calling him to liverpool, showing him the facilities etc and booking him (Kono) not AYre in hotels and we dont want that

    ReplyDelete
  125. ha ha ha. Somehow i hadnt looked at that way. but he really will be the king of freebies and a god one at it. SO we should go for him

    ReplyDelete