Gerard Houllier - RIP :-(

3 Dec 2010

LFC fans are totally WRONG about Christian Poulsen. And here's the *PROOF*

Every season without fail, fans seem to target one or two players for incessant criticism and continual scapegoating that defies reality, reason and any sense of fairness. Last season it was Lucas Leiva; this season it is Christian Poulsen. Baseless, unfounded fan criticism of players is something that really irritates me, and as I will illustrate, the the constant criticism of Poulsen once again highlights the depressing ignorance of some fans.

In my view, there is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION for the endless criticism of Poulsen. I keep hearing the same old cliches about him (he's rubbish/slow/poor at tackling etc) but none of the criticism is qualified with examples; it's all vague, generalised negativity for the sake of it, repeated ad nauseum irrespective of Poulsen's individual *impact* on the team.

To fairly judge Poulsen's effectiveness we need to consider the following questions:

Q. What position does he play?
A. Defensive midfielder

Q. What is 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?
A. By looking at how effective the team performs with Poulsen in it (i.e. goals conceded; games lost etc)

Poulsen is NOT a creative midfielder; it' s 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.

Javier Mascherano had the same primary role as Poulsen; was he judged on anything but his defensive ability? No. Why then should Poulsen be constantly criticised for doing exactly the same job?

This season, Liverpool is MORE effective with Poulsen in the team than when he's not, which makes a complete mockery of the ridiculous barracking he receives.

CHRISTIAN POULSEN: First 14 appearances analysis



Stats: LFChistory.net

ANALYSIS

When Poulsen plays, Liverpool:

* Are unbeaten in 86% of games
* Concede fewer goals (11 with Poulsen; 14 without)
* Only concede a goal every 92 minutes
* Lose fewer games (2 with Poulsen; 5 without)
* Achieve more clean sheets (7 with Poulsen; 3 without)

Without Poulsen, Liverpool:

* Lose more games (45% of games compared to 14% with Poulsen)
* Concede more goals more often (1 every 72 minutes)
* Are unbeaten in only 54% of games
* Score fewer goals
* Achieve fewer clean sheets

It really makes me laugh how all these automaton-esque fans just jump on the bandwagon and slag Poulsen off without actually considering his real effectiveness. It's like arguing that a striker who scores 20 goals a season is not good enough, i.e. utterly ridiculous.

These figures indisputably prove that Poulsen is having a specific, measurable positive impact on the team. His role is primarily defensive so it is no coincidence that with him in the team, Liverpool performs better defensively.

Poulsen is not the problem; Liverpool's poor attacking effectiveness has been the main issue this season (IMO). If players like Maxi, Joe Cole, Dirk Kuyt and Fernando Torres were making a consistent creative contribution to the team then things would be better. The team is not scoring enough goals, and that is hurting the club. Indeed, a recent example of the this came against Spurs last Sunday, when both Torres and Maxi failed to put away several gilt-edged chances.

I have proved that Poulsen is having a positive specific and measurable impact on Liverpool (in the context of his primary role, which is as a defensive midfielder) - 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 a valid argument.

The irrefutable figures proving Poulsen's effectiveness will *still* not be enough for some people though; they will not listen to reason, and will use the same old cliches about stats not being valid and blah blah blah.

Stats ARE valid, especially when it comes to objectively analysing a player's effectiveness, which is the only fair way to do it. 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.

I don't see how anyone can credibly maintain the argument that Poulsen is a bad player for Liverpool. If he is, PROVE IT. Refute the evidence that proves he is doing well for Liverpool.

Jaimie Kanwar


281 comments:

  1. Hey Jaimie, that was actually quite an insightful read considering I was one of the fans who just did not think that Poulsen was up to the job in our team. I thought that his best days were behind him and that he was having quite a minimal effect on the team as a whole. Could I perhaps ask did Poulsen start against West Ham? I thought that it was Lucas and Miereles in the middle that day (as other websites have stated), which is the basis for many now saying how great a partnership that is.

    I will hold my hands up and say that it appears I was mistaken about Poulsen and he has contributed to the team in a positive way. He is a stop gap signing given his age but if your statistics show anything it is that he does help the team defensively. I agree that it is simply because our attack has seemed to lack bite this year that we appear worse than we really are. Also it is interesting to note that the games Poulsen has started in the Europa League have been (at times) with a much weaker side and we have seemed to be doing quite well in that competition at the moment.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. comparing Poulsen to a 20 -goal a season striker. superb!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, because that's the point.

    You clearly have nothing relevant to add here, so why bother?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Marty - Poulsen started the West Ham game; Lucas wasn't een in the squad. Check out the line-up here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/9191283.stm

    And I disagree about the Euro opposition: Poulsen has played against Steaua, Napoli (twice) and Utrecht.  They are all good teams, and none of the games were lost.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The glaring oversight here is, of course, that even Poulsen himself has admitted to playing poorly.

    Presumably he's wrong too?

    Sharpen up will you Jaimie.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Chill out dude, what are u in love with Poulsen?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Poulsen is an average Fulham type player same as Konchesky thats al good if you have no drive and ambition to be a top side but luckily NESV are not stupid they know what needs to be done and Roy wont be here to much longer.Back to Poulsen his own national team said he is past it for Denmark after his performance against Portugal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pspFrMegKpc Sure he will do a job but not good enough to get us back to where we belong.You seem happy with mediocrity and going against what most knowledgable fans opinion just to be controversial and to get attention, sad really....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry if that was misinterpreted I meant that we fielded a weaker team when we played in these games (Jonjo, Kelly, Pacheco etc) so that makes those games and the results we achieved in them with him in the side even better.

    Ah right, wonder where the other websites got their information from then o.O; just glad to see that another signing seems to be panning out nicely despite the fact he was not a "superstar" signing...some people need to remember that we never have been about galacticos or anything like that, we sign or at least try to sign the best players for our team and the way we play.

    Joe Cole...I seriously hope he regains some form soon...we need our more creative players confident. Babel and Jovanovic combined quite well earlier!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Did Poulsen not say that "Liverpool fans have not seen the best of me yet" he was not saying that he had played poorly, simply that he had more to give to the team, unlike Konchesky who said he was not playing well enough.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ypical tactics:  trying to change the focus and - predictably - making excuses.  What others said about Poulsen is irrelevant.  What he did in the past is irrelevant. All that matters is how he is performing for Liverpool, and what impact he's having on the team NOW.  

    Knowledgeable fans?!  According to what?  Do you have a  mind of your own or do you just parrot what everyone else says? Fans who slam Poulsen and argue that he's not good enough are the complete *opposite* of knowledgeable.  Truly knowledgeable fans know how to look at things in context, and will accept credible facts when they're presented; they do dot ignorantly argue against the irrefutable just because they want a whipping boy to moan about.

    So - are you going to address the fact that Poulsen has had a consistently positive impact on Liverpool?  

    ReplyDelete
  11. Is what Poulsen said about himself irrelevant too?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes.  Why don't you explain how that has any bearing on his actual impact since the start of the season.  Does the fact he said that change the that with him in team, Liverpool are unbeaten in 86% of games?  Or that the team only concedes a goal every 92 minutes?!  Or that the team loses fewer games with him in the team? No.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your mistake is to think Liverpool fans don't rate Poulsen because he's ineffective. They don't rate him because he lacks quality/form. As he himself has admitted.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree, Marty.  Babel and Jovanovic deserve more chances.  Cole was poor once again, but that comes as no surprise given his performances so far this season.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Our manager has another opinion :

    ‘There have been one or two games, in front of our own fans, where he has not played well, and unfortunately you cannot stop that sort of response,’ said the Liverpool manager. ‘He knows he hasn’t played to his normal level, and he is devastated by it. The crowd aren’t stupid. They can see for themselves.
    ‘All he can do is keep working hard and, when he gets his chance to try and show what he’s capable of, make sure he takes it. It will be tough getting the fans on his side. He is a good defensive midfield player and is also not bad on the ball, but he has made a bad start here .’


     http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1328909/Roy-Hodgson-admits-Liverpool-midfielder-Christian-Poulsen-devastated-Anfield-boo-boys.html#ixzz170TpuWC3

    ReplyDelete
  16. No, Joe.  He did NOT admit he 'lacks quality', and his admission about form was for a temporary loss, not the entire season.  It is you who makes the mistake of thinking you know what goes on in the heads of Liverpool fans.  You obviously lack the ability to be fair; what Poulsen - or anyone else - says means nothing; what he DOES on the pitch, and how that impacts Liverpool's results is what matters herre. Why don't you address that instead of focusing on irrelevancies?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Unfortunately you're right on that, Cole has consistently had a minimal impact on the team as a whole and I personally think at the moment (until he gets some confidence and hopefully form in the team) he should be on the bench, maybe he will regain some match winning form but in the past that has been all too rare and I will bet that the media will put some sort of spin on it, simply because he is English...not that I have a problem with English players or managers but at times they do get a lot of protection when it comes to poor form or results while the blame shifts to other people.

    How much has Cole now cost per goal/assist? Think the contract Poulsen is on is worth more to the team. Pity is we will likely be unable to sell Cole on if his performances do not improve simply because of wage demands.

    Poulsen, Jovanovic and Babel were quite good tonight, have to say a run in the team would do them good although I am happy with Lucas and Miereles in the middle due to the Spurs game.

    Do you have any thoughts on why Jovanovic and Babel have not had many oppourtunities recently in the league under Roy? I think that given the right handling they could prove to be bargains (Babel especially if he somehow managed to combine his pace and shot with more of a footballing brain).

    ReplyDelete
  18. is it just me or this site only exist to grab attention and fuel heated argument among lfc fans.from observation the topics argued usually or always contradict the views of majority of the fans.As to the poulsen topics,we all can come to a consensus that he is playing below par of what he and most of the supporters expected of him.He had said so himself,quick google search will show and thats why he vows to double his effort to become a player worthy of the lfc shirt.

    I have nothing against him to be honest,just want the best for the club.either he prove himself on the pitch or be preapared to warm the bench or leave in january if he wants.Fans are well justified to critize players and they must be strong enough to take that criticsm positively.

    If poulsen can improve himself,he is most welcome to play or star every single match and be our 2nd masherano.But until then stay of the grass .......

    ynwa

    ReplyDelete
  19. You really don't get it, do you?

    Hodgson says 'in on or two games' - he's probably referring to the two defeats that Poulsen has played in.  He is NOT referring to the entire season.  

    It doesn't matter anyway - those comments do not supersede the facts, which I've presented in the article.  Why are you focusing on comments when the facts prove that Poulsen is effective for Liverpool? Why should comments that have NO BEARING on Liverpool's performances and results take precedence over the actual reality of Poulsen's specific, measurable impact on the team?

    It's ridiculous how people are so desperate to believe that Poulsen is crap that they will ignore reality and try and find anything they can to maintain the illusion.  The same ignorance is applied to Hodgson as well: people are so desperate for him to fail that they will completely ignore anything positive, and try and put a negative spin on anything that places him in a good light.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Your analysis is utter nonsense.  One cannot - statistically - attribute those factors to just one player out of eleven on the pitch at any one time.  There ar far too many dynamics to make this sort of analysis feasible.

    I call Poulsen a 5-yard player.

    When Liverpool's opposition are in possession he is always:-
    - 5-yards away from being able to make a tackle
    - 5 yards away from being able to make an interception

    When Liverpool are in possession he is always: -
    - 5-yards away from being able to receive a pass

    He does a lot of running about but his biggesst success is to never be where he needs to be - yep, you've got it - he always just 5-yards away.

    ReplyDelete
  21. <span>is it just me or this site only exist to grab attention and fuel heated argument among lfc fans.from observation the topics argued usually or always contradict the views of majority of the fans.</span>

    It is just you.  My views contradict the majority of fans because I am not a sheep and I have a mind of my own.  I don't care what the majority thinks; I don't form opinions because it's the opposite of the majority; this is the way I genuinely think, and if the majority doesn't like it, tough.

    Just because a majority thinks something doesn't make it automatically right.  In m experience, the majority of LFC fans are regularly (and spectacularly) wrong. You just need to look at Broughton/Purslow issue to see that. 

    <span>we all can come to a consensus that he is playing below par of what he and most of the supporters expected of him.</span>

    how do you reach that conclusion.  Based on what?  The facts contradict you: Poulsen is a defensive mid, and he is doing a superb job when you consider the actual job of a defensive mid. So please explain with examples how he is 'below par'. 

    <span>Fans are well justified to critize players and they must be strong enough to take that criticsm positively.  </span>

    No - fans are only justified in criticising when the criticism is justified.

    In Poulsen's case, he can be criticised for a couple of poor performances but overall, as the figures show, the team does better when he is playing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree with you about Poulsen - never been able to understand the criticism  as he's never been so bad as to deserve it and it is damaging to his morale.

    By the way, it's Gilt-edged!

    Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I suggest you try posting something that's actually insightful for once such as evidence of what exactly Poulsen's contribution was in that 86% of games in which we were unbeaten. Because until you do, you've proven nothing. You just make yourself look silly claiming you have and even sillier presuming to know precisely why Liverpool supporters don't rate the guy.

    Let's see how your analysis stands up over the course of a full season, shall we?

    ReplyDelete
  24. <span><span>Your entire '5 yarder' analysis </span></span>is baseless and without foundation.  It is subjective analysis (i.e. your opinion) and proves nothing.  I have offered objective analysis of how the team performs with and without Poulsen.  That is valid whether you like it or not. And tyou have said changes the fact that with Poulsen in the team, Liverpool concede fewer goals; lose less games; achieve more clean sheets and have a higher overall unbeaten %.  Given the fact he is a defensive player, this speaks volumes about his effectiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joe - if you continue posting stuff containing derogatory comments then I will ban you.  If you have points to make, do so in the right manner.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Aaagh!  Silly mistake to make. Thanks :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Or - why don't you address exactly WHAT Poulsen contributed to that 86% and ACTUALLY PROVE he's a positive influence rather than just claiming he is simply for being on the pitch?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Poulsen has no pace and has shown poor distribution and many games he has been shocking with games just passing him by.and thats a "fact"As i watch every minute of Liverpools season its not hard to see that if we want to get to a level of Chelsea or Ubited we need a better standard in the center no doubt poulsen can do a job as i said but can you see poulsen being in a team challenging for a title?He wouldnt get anywhere near our rivals teamsheet and he shouldnt be in ours.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hmm...I think a genuine assesment of him should be made with Premier League games only, when the side is fairly consistant and the opposition are undeniably always (at least fairly) difficult to beat. Even the lowly teams are rarely a push over and he is playing with the best players around him. Europa League games are against teams who in the main finished well short of top spot in leages inferior to ours (obviously with the exception of Napoli). The fact that a second string Liverpool side has topped the group illistrates this very clearly - that same second string Liverpool side would probabaly not stay up in the Prem if played week in week out. You cannot argue with that Jaimie.

    As for stats....they are only valid upto a point. You haven't considered who else played in those games, you have only considered Poulson alone. Surely you could only draw a conclusion from Stats if you analysed every (league) game and then compared all the stats...even then stats do not provide the full picture. Maybe the games which we won with Poulson in the team where against weaker sides where an effective Defensive Mid was less required, or maybe those games also coincidentally had our best defensive four in aswell. Simply drawing a stat about Poulson alone only suggests his effect, it does not prove it.

    Did you watch us against Blackpool? I was there, Poulson played, we lost and one of the main reasons we lost was becuase we let them dominate us, we let them come at us time and again, barely a takcle was made until they got within 6 yards of our box for long periods fo the game. Had Mascherano or Didi (in his younger days) played many of those attacks would have been stopped much earlier either directly by the tackle or becuase they would have harried them into giving possession away. That was Poulsens job that day, and he failed. Yes it was early in his Liverpool career and yes it was just one game but still not a good example.

    Based on your stats, for league games, we conceded 9 goals with him in the side in 8 games, 2 as sub. Of those 8 games, 2 were at home against WBA and West Ham, both relatively lowly teams (one bottom of the table) who generally come and park the bus and defend. Therefore the emphasis is on us to attack and the need for an effective Defensive Midfielder is much reduced. Take those two '11 men behind the ball games' out and we conceded 9 goals in 6 league games with him in the side where we needed an effective DM. Suddenly your stats don't look quite so rosey do they? Take it even further, remove the sub appearances and we conceded 7 goals in just 4 games that Poulsen started, in games where we needed an effective DM.

    Stats can be read many ways Jaimie, thats why you can't rely on one analysis of them alone....

    ReplyDelete
  30. Perception, as they say, is 100% of reality.

    Your analysis is not objective as it place zero value of the contribution of players around Poulsen

    Why don't you try the identical analysis for all of the squad members who've made a playing contribution this season. and produce a chart showing which of those players has made a positive contriution and which a negative one.

    maybe, just MAYBE your analysis will begin to accumulate some data which could be used a basis for some meaningful statistical analysis.

    As it stands you may as well analyse how many time we won, lost or drew after  Roy had porridge for breakfast. 

    ReplyDelete
  31. I watch every minute of every game too - If you really did, you would acknowledge the donkey work that Poulsen does in breaking up play and feeding the ball to attacking players.  He has done this effectively in *every* appearance in a Liverpool shirt.  You are focusing on the one or wo times during a game he might make a mistake, and discounting 90% of good stuff that he does.  

    Your point about challenging United/Chelsea etc is just not relevant.  That was never the goal this season, and anyone who seriously thought it was has their head in the sand.  Poulsen should be judge on his personal effectiveness only, not on his perceived suitability for some future title challenge.

    You seem completely dead set against acknowledging the positives (as outlined in the article), and you're obviously (irrationally) desperate for Poulsen to fail, so I see no sense in wasting time debating the issue further with you.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I watch every minute of every game too - If you really did, you would acknowledge the donkey work that Poulsen does in breaking up play and feeding the ball to attacking players.  He has done this effectively in *every* appearance in a Liverpool shirt.  You are focusing on the one or wo times during a game he might make a mistake, and discounting 90% of good stuff that he does.  

    Your point about challenging United/Chelsea etc is just not relevant.  That was never the goal this season, and anyone who seriously thought it was has their head in the sand.  Poulsen should be judge on his personal effectiveness only, not on his perceived suitability for some future title challenge.

    You seem completely dead set against acknowledging the positives (as outlined in the article), and you're obviously (irrationally) desperate for Poulsen to fail, so I see no sense in wasting time debating the issue further with you.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I watch every minute of every game too - If you really did, you would acknowledge the donkey work that Poulsen does in breaking up play and feeding the ball to attacking players.  He has done this effectively in *every* appearance in a Liverpool shirt.  You are focusing on the one or wo times during a game he might make a mistake, and discounting 90% of good stuff that he does.  

    Your point about challenging United/Chelsea etc is just not relevant.  That was never the goal this season, and anyone who seriously thought it was has their head in the sand.  Poulsen should be judge on his personal effectiveness only, not on his perceived suitability for some future title challenge.

    You seem completely dead set against acknowledging the positives (as outlined in the article), and you're obviously (irrationally) desperate for Poulsen to fail, so I see no sense in wasting time debating the issue further with you.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I watch every minute of every game too - If you really did, you would acknowledge the donkey work that Poulsen does in breaking up play and feeding the ball to attacking players.  He has done this effectively in *every* appearance in a Liverpool shirt.  You are focusing on the one or wo times during a game he might make a mistake, and discounting 90% of good stuff that he does.  

    Your point about challenging United/Chelsea etc is just not relevant.  That was never the goal this season, and anyone who seriously thought it was has their head in the sand.  Poulsen should be judge on his personal effectiveness only, not on his perceived suitability for some future title challenge.

    You seem completely dead set against acknowledging the positives (as outlined in the article), and you're obviously (irrationally) desperate for Poulsen to fail, so I see no sense in wasting time debating the issue further with you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ok you're basing the value of the player by the win/loss ratio?
    You could imagine a situation where Poulsen or any other player on the field plays badly, and where the 4 defenders and the goalkeeper have blinder. Your use of the stat is just IRRELEVANT.

    Something is wrong in the rotten kingdom of...eeeeer Poulsen's Danemark! :D (Thank you Shakespear for your input)

    But, according to yourself you should use stats relevant to the position  of the midfielder to judge his performances, which is, basically, what you didn't do here...you didn't provide any stats analysis related to "completed passes/successful tackles/any other parameters DIRECTLY linked to the DM job/etc" in percentage.

    Come back with those, and we shall see how effective Poulsen really is!

    Meanwhile, you're just proving that stats, as factual as they are, worth nothing if you don't interpret them correctly here: FACT!


    <img></img>

    ReplyDelete
  36. <span>Based on your stats, for league games, we conceded 9 goals with him in the side in 8 games, 2 as sub. Of those 8 games, 2 were at home against WBA and West Ham, both relatively lowly teams (one bottom of the table) who generally come and park the bus and defend. Therefore the emphasis is on us to attack and the need for an effective Defensive Midfielder is much reduced. Take those two '11 men behind the ball games' out and we conceded 9 goals in 6 league games with him in the side where we needed an effective DM. Suddenly your stats don't look quite so rosey do they? Take it even further, remove the sub appearances and we conceded 7 goals in just 4 games that Poulsen started, in games where we needed an effective DM.  <span>

    Just look at the way you twist the facts.  You say focus on prem games, then come up with ridiculous exclusionary rule whereby two games are removed.  Why?  Because you want to paint Poulsen in a negative light so the only way to do that is create exclusions that achieve that goal.  That is completely classless.</span></span>

    if you just take prem games, Poulsen's record is still excellent, and the team still does  better with him in the team than not.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Whatever.  Keep trying to make out the stats have no value.  They do, and nothing you or anyone can argue will change that.  

    If you want to do a comparative analysis of all LFC's players then go ahead. You have offered no credible counter arguments to disprove the stats yet; you've just done the obvious, i.e. tried to discredit the stats with the usual cliched arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I have read your blog numerous times now and I've got to to say that i pretty much disagree with everything you say. This time time however, i simply cannot refrain from actually commenting. To even compare Poulsen with Mascherano is an absolute disgrace. In fact to compare him with Lucas is an absolute disgrace. 19 year old Shelvey was far better than him tonight.
    Poulsen is one of, if not the worst player I have ever seen in a Liverpool shirt. He IS slow, he IS poor at tackling and I've got to say I don't think he's the best passer of a ball either. To be quite honest, he makes Salif Diao look pretty good. For you to try and defend him shows you that you really don;t have an eye for the game of football. I know that's harsh because you are obviously very passionate about LFC but, reality check, you are pretty clueless. 
    Did you even watch the game tonight, or any others that Poulsen has played in? It's embarrassing! I am absolutely outraged that Roy spent £5m of our much needed money on this player. Juventus must have been absolutely pissing their pants this summer. "Yeah yeah, we'll give you £5 million for a player that can't get a game for your reserves and then let you have a world class midfielder on loan for a year with an option to buy at half his true value!!" What a joke.
    And how you have the nerve to slag off real Liverpool fans by saying we are 'scapegoating' and the criticism is 'unfounded' is an absolute disgrace. It just shows that you are not a real liverpool fan, you are just a wind-up merchant.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out you are a blue-nose to be honest. What exactly does this player offer? I could stand in front of the back four all game and do naff all if you wanted. The guy is supposed to be a hard man but gets outmuscled by players like Nzogbia! He has no vision, no ability to break down opposition moves, and looks like he simply cannot be arsed to play. There was a break away this evening when Joe Cole was fouled and the ball fell to Poulsen and rather than even look for a pass, he tapped it back in the vague direction of Cole, forcing the ref to give a free-kick. The ref had waved played on because even he could see that there were forward options available to us. The referee, not a pro footballer, could see that it was an advantage to us to play on, but could Poulsen be arsed? No, let's just take the free-kick.
    He's a disgrace, mate. Hodgson is a disgrace for wasting our money on him, and, quite frankly, you are an absolute disgrace for even trying to defend him.
    Sorry to be so harsh but you need to take step back and think about what you are saying if you are going to continue running a Liverpool blog site.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jamie, why don't you try going to Anfield to watch Pousen play rather than just sitting at home crunching stats on your computer.

    You might actually enjoy yourself whist seeing 1st hand that Poulsen - despite your "statistics" and "analysis" is actually an underperforming, ageing player 

    ReplyDelete
  40. I do feel for Poulsen..whenever I've seen him play I've always felt he has done the job asked of him. He obviously feels devasted by the reception he has recieved from some fans which probably would have prompted his self reflective statements. Unfortunately, he did have a couple of below par performances when he was settling in to the EPL, and has rather unfairly continously been chastised ever since.

    As has been mentioned, it is difficult to stand out when your role isn't creative. He also is suffering from what I call the 'Lucas' effect. Every team seems to have a player who often has to bear the brunt of the fans frustration. In previous seasons it was Lucas, however he seems to have won the fans over, and in fairness his performances this season certainly represent an improvement. This does mean that there needs to be a new figure of ridicule..and the new boy Poulsen is the player taking the flack.

    Evidently, there are a fair few players who have not been their best this season, However as is the way with human nature, its difficult to criticise someone who you have praised before. Perhaps CP, as one of the new additions, and a player strongly associated with RH and his percieved failings, represents the perfect scapegoat for some fans this season.

    The author's stats are very interesting, and represent compelling evidence in Poulsen's defence. I was also intrigued by Trev's suggestion that CP is consistently just removed from where he needs to be during the match. Jaimie it would be really interesting to look at the areas of Poulsen's individual performances, maybe in comparison with other DM's that have played for LFC or even other premiership teams. I'm not sure what criteria you would use or where you find the info...perhaps stats to consider could be succesfull tackles, number of opposing plays broken up..etc.

    Anyway, thanks again for another interesting article. 

    ReplyDelete
  41. Nice effort Jaimie~

    I must admit that I for one have been doubting the ability of christian poulsen. I certain have not compared how the team fares with/without him though. Quite clearly he is not the sad sob i thought he was.

    Yet, i could forgive myself if i thought back to 2006, watching him don the shirt of sevilla. He was a monster back then. I think many LFC fans, and myself included, tend to compare him with his past (before the injuries killed his form) rather than compare him with other players. Because of this, he tends to get a lot of stick because he doesn't play up to expectations of him.

    On a sidenote, has anyone noticed that poulsen, since his awkward backwards header (vs Napoli), has been a pretty stable DM, and one who could spot a pass better than masch?

    ReplyDelete
  42. How many times do I have to say it?  I will not allow this site to be overtaken by posters who snipe and make pointless derogatory comments.  If you want your posts to stay up, stick to debating the issues.  Any posts that ignore the comment policy will be deleted, and the posters concerned will have all future posts checked before going live.  If people don't like this policy, there are 100s of other LFC sites to visit.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You're right about the part Jaimie needs to look to the stats more in particular area related to the DM role to seriously make a statement regarding Poulsen.

    Because with the way Win/Loss of games is used here, I can definitely turn some average players into worldclass players!
    <img></img>

    ReplyDelete
  44. I agree bjc - Poulsen is a better passer than Mascherano.  He might not have masch's energy and drive but that doesn't make him a bad player.  I'm not suggesting that he is the long-term solution - we need mroe dynamic midfielders for the future - but at this moment, Poulsen is here, and he should be judged on how he's performing right now.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I like you site very much thank you.

    Could you please answer to my post up there, I'm quite interested of what you have to say, and I think it's pretty much into the subject.
    <img></img>

    ReplyDelete
  46. Poulsen is an ageing player lacking in the qualities necessary to make him a valued member of a Liverpool squad.  Maybe he could have been a few years ago - but no longer.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Poulsen is a better passer than Mascherano?!!!! Do you people watch football?

    ReplyDelete
  48. How fun is that Jaimie can't address my point! (I'd be glad to be proved wrong, as for now...still waiting)
    <img></img>

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dec,

    Do you have the stats comparing Poulsen and Mascherano's pass completion rates over (say)  the past 3 seasons to prove that - rather bold - statement

    ReplyDelete
  50. It's 2.30am here - I will address other points tomorrow.  I am not online 24/7.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Hi Roy

    To be fair is it is half two in the morning..think you may need to give Jaimie a break. He puts a lot of effort, not just in writing the articles, but also responding to individual posters (something that  many other LFC commentators don't do). I think hes entitled to a bit of kip now! :-D

    ReplyDelete
  52. While impressive, you cannot judge a player's effectiveness based on the statistics that you worked out. You need to look at it in totality. There many variables in the equation like team formation, composition of the team like who is playing and in what position, oppositions' strength and tactics of the day and etc, etc.

    At the end of the day, we still need to judge the player from what we observe. If not, we won't need managers managing the team. Christian is a good player but not at Liverpool. He seems lost at times on the field, lacks aggresiveness at times and is just an inconsistent performer. There were times when he should be closing down on opposing players and he failed to do so.

    Javier wins the midfield balls, tackles well, and links up with the forwards and creative midfielders well.  Christian had not succeeded in these areas. We hope he improves because from what I saw of him previously, he was very good. He WAS a good player but not at Liverpool. So far, he is at best MEDIOCRE! 

    ReplyDelete
  53. Of those 14 opponents he has faced the only one that could be considered a top 6 team is Man United (and we lost). Would you concede the fact he hasn't played in our games against Chelsea, Tottenham, Man City, Arsenal is indicitive that he is more likely to be involved in 'not losing' sides because the sides he faces are easier and more likely to 'park-the bus'?

    (I won't even touch the fact that he sloppily conceded possesion for the first goal in the Napoli game that Stevie saved our bacon in) which goes against the criteria you stipulated in your article (<span>Q. What is his primary role in the team?</span>
    A. To stop goals being scored)

    Personally, I'm neither here nor there about Poulsen and think he's looked a bit better recently but I thought I'd give the readers some food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hey Jamie,

    Your site "rules" state that "banter is OK" and yet you've deleted one of my comments and amended another one. 

    You state (paraphrased) "if you don't like negative comments, don't visit the site". on Jamie practice what you preach - face up to the criticism, respond in your usual dismissive fashion - or is it that it's only you who can be critical but cannot in turn face criticism

    Show us all just how shallow you actually are.


    Come

    ReplyDelete
  55. Well, it's just that Jaimie replied to some other posts newer than mine, so I felt like being ignored.

    No worries.
    <img></img>

    ReplyDelete
  56. I'll bet these don't survive the censors scissors !!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Hey Roy

    Don't worry..I'm sure he'll get back 2 u tomorrow. I live in the UK too,  I'm up watching the ashes...though I'm sure I'm gonna regret it tomorrow though!!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Sorry Trev, i haven't got stats and wouldn't know where to get them. I have watched 90mins of nearly every liverpool game in the last few years tho and don't need stats to say that. I personally think too much emphasis is placed on stats these days. If you took Gerrard for example, he probably has a worse pass rate than someone like Kyrgiakos simply because he will often try the killer ball whereas the Greek will play a simple 5 yarder whenever available.
    My reason for believing that Masch is a better passer than Poulsen is becuase Masch had the ability to play the ball forward to feet. When Poulsen plays the ball forward it is generally a hopeful chip/punt.
    I have nothing against him personally but i think he is one of the worst players I have ever seen in a Liverpool shirt. He makes Salif Diao look good!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Again the abuse of statisitics is greatly exposed in your analysis. Football is a game of 11 players NOT 1 player. In your analysis the dependent variable is a function of at least 11 independent variable. I ll also strongly advise you to take into account the "ranking of opposition" in the football world. Once you have a in-depth of all these factors, we can start making sense of the table presented by you. I know in statistics it is WORNG to have 11 players on the pitch and based your finding on a particular player, unless you are able to PROOF beyond reasonable doubt the contribution of the 10 other players are insignficant.

    Y = X1+X2+.....X12  So you have a complex model.  Your X's should have included all 11 players, plus the contribution of the substitutes and the ranking of the opposition. Once you set up your model, we can see which of the 12 or more factors are mostly significant to the games WON.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I'm with Roy here, I think that you, Jaimie, rely on stats to make a point out of this, as you know so far he (Poulsen) has been way under par, even though there wasn't too much to expect.

    Under the game against Portugal, for Denmark, he played so badly that he got an extremely rare rating after the game by the leading sportspaper in Denmark.  I think it was only used 5 times before or so in 15 years of sports coverage by that paper.  He got the lowest possible rating, 1, followed by the words "Change job".

    Stats is all well and good, but if you play for Liverpool it also matters how you play, and very clearly Poulsen isn't up for the task, even though he has some decent (team- not individual) stats against major European sides such as Trabzonspor, Steaua Bucuresti (not with an H) and West Ham.

    With this piece, I just feel that you want to be controversial by again claiming you're right and the rest of the bunch (or "majority" as you call it) are "spectacularly wrong", which you always do.   Many people stop by and put up a totally idiotic comment, as they don't want to waste their time on being well-behaved and objective when you brush their opinions away.  Answer the questions you feel comfortable answering, and not to those who actually is critical and serious, that seems to be your way of dealing with things here...

    Before you answer my message, if you're thinking about doing it, please answer Roy's first question/opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Again the abuse of statisitics is greatly exposed in your analysis. Football is a game of 11 players NOT 1 player. In your analysis the dependent variable is a function of at least 11 independent variable.  (A win is a function of all 11 players on the pitch ) I ll also strongly advise you to take into account the "RANKING OF THE OPPOSITION" in the football world. Once you have a in-depth analysis of all these factors, we can start making sense of the table presented by you. You can not statistically infer the inclusion of Poulsen produced a better result. The result MUST be a function of the starting 11 players, the subs, ranking of the oppostion, was the game played home or away.
     
    Y = X1+X2+.....X12+e (where e is UNEXPLAINED)  So you have a complex model.  Your X's should have included all 11 players, plus the contribution of the substitutes and the ranking of the opposition. Once you set up your model, we can see which of the 12 or more factors are mostly significant to the games WON.<span>

    </span>Nice try tho.... 8-)

    ReplyDelete
  62. So Liverpool have a decent record with Poulsen in the side, this is despite him being int he side not beacuase of him. Like others before me have said jsut giving the results of the games he spalyed in means very little. you could put poulsen in the Barcelona 11 and theyd still win every game, it wudnt make him the best DM int he world or even a very good one, while the stats wud say otehrwise.

    Why this obsession with defending him and Konchesky?

    Hown many games has Joe Cole played, why does he not deserve the same settling in period as konchesky who has been horrible yet evades the wrath of your critisism(stats)?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Well said John, Jamie sometimes I think you create these articles just to court contoversy. In almost everybodies opinion Poulsen is very average at best, I have watched him play and to be honest no matter what the stats say he looks lame, weak, and out of his depth with regards to the pace of the game and what is going on around him, id like to see the stats for how many 50/50 tackles he has put his full effort into.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Interesting article but I can't totally agree with you. Of course your comment on some Liverpool fans about Poulsen is mostly right but I think that stats you used are not enough to support your opinion.

    When we rate some player, I think we need to consider the quality of the opposition and a context of each match. Poulsen has tended to play against the weaker oposition so far. When he faced against good teams, he has not been good especially man utd. He didn't feature agaimst Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester city, Everton and so on.. And vs Sunderland when he went off his performance was really poor so he was sacrificed tactical change.

    He also featured against Napoli at Anfield, he had a really bad mistake to concede though we won the game thanks for hattrick from our skipper.

    When sometimes I visit this site, I'm really interested in your articles. You often break some fans' prejudices including mine. But I wish you would be more careful when you use statistics. Stats are always fact but not always truth as you know. Anyway it is also a good article.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I would have to agree with you Trev on this topic. One cannot merely look at the simple statistics of "games played vs games won" in a game of football when it comes to INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS. For the overall team performance you can of course and to judge the performance of the manager the same applies. 
    But not for any 1 player in that team as there are also at least 10 other players(+subs) that play a vital role in that overall statistic.
    How many times does a team win with some average performances from some players, some good performances from others, and from magical performances from say 1 player? 
    Quite often I would think!
    And the contrary is true. Just take our game against Spurs. We lost. The reason?
    Some players played poorly - i would put Reina in this bracket - apart from the 2 goals, on 2 other occasions did he block crosses by palming the ball directly back in front of goal into the path of a waiting Spurs player - the first time he was saved by Carra, the second by Miereles. (And again another error last night, and this time it did in fact lead to a goal.)
    In the spurs game, some players played very well (Miereles) whilst others only average (Torres , Maxi missed point blank chances - by taking these we could have WON the match, and their performances would have been great instead of average).
    I would also agree that when it comes to individual analysis for players in different positions one needs to look specifically at that position = eg, for a midfieilder - tackles successful v unsuccessful, interceptions completed, shots blocked, passes completed successfully , how many attacks set up etc etc.
    It is common for teams to "carry" players that are not playing well - all teams do this even though they may still win the game. 
    Also, I am against this notion of a "defensive midfielder" as someone who only sits back and breaks up play - by definition a midfielder IS  both a defensive AND creative player and is required to not only tackle and break up the opponents attacks (otherwise he should not be on the field) AND to launch attacks and initiate goal scoring opportunities as required.
    You may as well then just call Poulsen a Defender then by your definition of his role in the team . 
    And I believe this is the whole problem of how the LFC mindset is at the moment (although the Spurs game was much much better) - way too much emphasis on defensive tactics and not enough emphasis on keeping the ball using skill and finesse and creating numerous goal scoring chances at will. 
    Whilst Poulsen may be a sound player with many fine attributes, I somehow dont think he is or was considered  anything more than a stop gap measure until finances were sorted and much classier ball playing and competent defensive MIDFIELDERS are bought into the team - which will more than likely be in the NEW year. 

    ReplyDelete
  66. that doesn't prove anything at all.  your data set is too small to be statistically significant, and your use of it is selective to boot.

    for starters, why don't you omit the Europa League games and substitute appearances.  that way, your comparison at least approaches like with like (i.e. approx 90 min league performances).

    you are right to say his defensive capacity is his primary significance.  Clean sheets would be a critical measure of his contribution.  So far, we've had three clean sheets from his league starts. 

    clean sheets are coming at a better rate with him than without him, but then again they have come against weaker opponents.

    poulsen isn't very mobile, and that means we can't press the ball as well with him relative to say a Mascherano, Lucas or Sissoko.  ability to press is very important to Liverpool because our two key attacking weapons, Torres and Gerrard, are at their best on the counterattack.  Part of Torres' struggles this year relate to the fact we simply aren't pressing the ball as actively as we did under Benitez.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Superfan right here folks. The same man that said "Johnson or Lucas didn't make a measurable impact to the team" but refused to acknowledge my Johnson/Lucas stats and reasoning when I did so. FWIW, I actually agree with Jaimie here about Poulsen being used as a scapegoat. He's not the best player to ever wear a Liverpool shirt, he's been overly lethargic at times in defense (jogging back after giving the ball away leading to goals - not measurable by stats btw) and being responsible for gifting some goals away through poor defensive work but he's nowhere near as bad as people make him out to be. Sure his games have been against lesser opposition but what do you do?

    He's got the potential to be a useful squad/backup player under the right direction and there are actually a fair few aspects of his game that are (put your coffee down guys) IMPRESSIVE. Yes, I said impressive. I believe we overpaid for him and offered him far too long a deal and of course the 'collateral damage' was a hard act to swallow (is that the right term, I'm taking about Aquilani's loss btw) but no amount of crying will remedy it, so we make do the best we can with what we've got.

    There's no point bullshitting on about stats this and stats that because when someone mentions Paul Tomkins' work, it's automatically "don't post his shit here, his stats are wrong" but you can come to a simple conclusion from that. Stats can be manipulated to any extreme you'd like them to be and this is just one proof in the extreme. This is one of those, "you've just got to watch the game and have a keen eye" type of scenarios. The same idiots that said Johnson and Insua are liabilities in defense are the same ones saying Poulsen is too old/slow/shit or whatever. Yep, he's slow but so was Hyypia and he was pretty ace. Yep, he's too old to be part of 'long-term' vision of LFC but we weren't seeking long-term vision a few months back, we were seeking 'short-term survivability'. We were like a junkie wondering where his next fix was coming from in terms of player investment.

    Also, because we now play a primarily 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 formation, there's another case to be argued that a DM like CP is a poor idea, again something that you can't measure with stats but many years of coaching and training can tell you this. The guy isn't bad, he's not good enough to start every week sure, but it's a team game and more importantly a squad game.

    I do find it interesting that you had a dig at Dirk Kuyt in the past for "not being creative enough" but not Poulsen because "it's not his primary job to create". Why is it Dirk Kuyt's job to create but not Poulsen? Is it because of the positions they play? Positions mean very little in the modern game, roles and duties mean far more. Liverpool's attack and away form has been the problem for over a year now (and not our defense contrary to popular belief), last season it was mainly down to the poor form shown by Gerrard and Rafa's unwillingness to drop him or shift him out to the right. Defense has actually become a concern again this year but such is to be expected when switching systems (we've gone from full zonal to zona-mista in open play and man-to-man for set-pieces).

    Back to the issue of creativity, don't spout this "Lucas wasn't creative enough" rubbish because it simply wasn't the case, Gerrard wasn't creative enough (I'm not going to hold it against him, he's saved us on more than one occasion, he's entitled to a shitty spell). Johnson's additional attacking threat down the right (compared to Arby the season before) more than made up for the loss of Alonso in terms of chances created while Lucas' defensive game covered for Alonso's defensive shortcomings at the expense of those beautiful passes (notice our ball [...]

    ReplyDelete
  68. I think statistics can only provide a partial view. You can abstract numbers from their source and consider it a reasonable argument. It would like saying Lucas is a better passer than Gerrard because he has a higher pass completion rate. Statistics are useful, yes and they can often reveal suprising facts.

    Take for example the stats of how Liverpool perform without Gerrard- I imagine for some fans (not me, I imagine mostly neutrals or more casual fans) the fact we aren't a 'one-man team' as wer're told so often is surprising (unless we get the rare luxury of being called a 'two man team!').

    These stats do prove that Poulsen isn't the unimitigated failure that some people have said. He is not 'the worst player to pull on a red shirt' (the criteria for which seems to be increasingly indiscriminate). That said he is not (anymore) a particularly good player. No matter how well he plays, the fact he is the wrong side of 30 and not blessed with pace means he will always be at a disadvantage in the Prem. Secondly, you have to compare Poulsen with the player who has taken his place in the team- Lucas. If you compare Poulsen to Lucas this season, however you spin it, he has been poor. To be honest, I'm no fan of Jay Spearing but I think Spearing has looked more composed and ready for the challenge when called upon.

    What these stats fail to show is the number of misplaced passes from Poulsen that needn't be misplaced. It doesn't show the nervousness he has shown which hardly inspires confidence in his team mates. Many times his passing has landed his team mates in trouble. I think Poulsen has picked up from a couple of months ago but whilst the anti-Poulsen bunch are too forceful in their criticism, you are too forthcoming with your praise.

    The stats miss out the pen he gave away against Sunderland. They don't show the reader the 'assist' for the opposition against Napoli. Also I can't agree with your assessment of the quality of the teams in the Europa league- the only side with genuine quality is Napoli, who should have beat us at their place but they bottled it.

    Last point- there is no point in the idiots who boo him and sarcastically applaud him at the match, gets us nowhere. If you want to get on your own players backs, go to Goodison.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I'm pissed off you removed the "people calling Hodgson 'Woy' will be banned" tagline, I was proud of that one.  I did appreciate you removing the "rejecting blind fandom" tagline after it was pointed out that you "had a feeling Hodgson would take us to 4th" but for a man that loves his stats, couldn't even find any to back him up on why you think it's the case.  If RH's team finishes lower than 10th will you accept to do a piece titled "Why Rafa Benitez is BETTER than Roy Hodgson and here's the *PROOF*", I'll make your job easy: win % and trophies.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I'm pissed off you removed the "people calling Hodgson 'Woy' will be banned" tagline, I was proud of that one. I did appreciate you removing the "rejecting blind fandom" tagline after it was pointed out that you "had a feeling Hodgson would take us to 4th" but for a man that loves his stats, couldn't even find any to back him up on why you think it's the case. If RH's team finishes lower than 7th will you accept to do a piece titled "Why Rafa Benitez is BETTER than Roy Hodgson and here's the *PROOF*", I'll make your job easy: win % and trophies.

    ReplyDelete
  71. jamie kanwar , you suck!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Ido think that yous stat analysis is not complete considering how many times  has Poulsen been in the first 11, are you saying that he is better! defensively, than who!?  from the look of things u are trying to compare other players playing the same position. do you consider how many games each has played befor you try to compare. i do think you its better if u can be able to help us understand better who is the best player for the holding midfld.!

    ReplyDelete
  73. Well explained John. This is looking at the statistics in totality. At the end of the day, football should be kept simple.

    ReplyDelete
  74. By the way I am not against poulsen and believe he can do a reasonable job for a year or so but the title is too much .

    ReplyDelete
  75. Everybody knows that 93.76% of the time facts and statistics are made up and 67% ofthe time there are true :-D

    ReplyDelete
  76. If you didn't care what other 'sheep' fan think, you wouldn't write this article and then argue every little point. I think you are a man that enjoys making bold statements to entice others, and then stick by them so strongly you cannot see the exact truth. I don't agree with you, or the average 'sheep' fan. Poulson is a good player who has strengths but simply put no stats can convince me he is anything but a step back from our previous central midfielders

    ReplyDelete
  77. absolutly rubbish stats.  a better way to analize his effectiveness surely would be his passing accuracy, tackles made end lost, etc. with your *stat* method i can proof to you that reina is about 10th best goal keeper in the prem just by virtue of our league position and goals conceded, and that my friend is completely wrong. poulsen commits more fouls then clean tackles from what i've seen and that should be your basis to start from when analising him.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I hope you are right about Poulsen, Jamie. But you have to do better work with your statistics if they are supposed to prove anything. Two examples:
    - At home to Napoli, Poulsen went off after 65 minutes when the score was still 0-1. He definetly did not win that game.
    - At home to Sunderland he went off when Sunderland were leading 2-1, and Liverpool saved a point without him.
    I am not saying that Poulsen is a terrible player, but these stats prove nothing when you don't do them properly.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Poulson is not up to par as a Lpool player. His performances in the Premier league games the games that count he has been shocking. in hindsight we would have been better of for the long term if we had played Shelvey or Spearing in those games. his performances are not that significant to warrant keeping a promising youth out of ourside.

    ReplyDelete
  80. how many tackles does poulsen put in in a game?? pretty much zero.
    how any times does poulsen s**t out of a tackle? pretty much every opportunity.
    how many goals have led from him pulling out of every tackle or putting his body in the line? we'll leave that one for carol vorderman  to tot up.
    how many suicide passes does he make per game?
    how far off the pace is he both physically and mentally??
    the man is useless. you can honestly say from producing a sheet a stats that you have confidence in him when he steps on to a pitch???? Id rather play with 10 men and remove the liability. dirk would be a better option in DM!
    you're treading in to the realms of Houllier with your stats. we didnt win the game but we had 21 corners. so what!!??!!

    ReplyDelete
  81. A bit of information for you Jamie, which you will probably disregard because it is going to sound quite far fetched but anyways Poulsens own agent advised Roy that he was not of the required quality to be a Liverpool player and instead he had 4 other players that were much better midfielders, Roy however insisted on signing poulsen. How do I know this information well I can't possibly divulge it, but it is true.
    The stats make interesting reading can you dig the same up on konchesky, because I personally believe the 2 players are terrible. Out of those games I wander what Poulsens passing and tackling rate is

    ReplyDelete
  82. "
    Joe - if you continue posting stuff containing derogatory comments then I will ban you."Seems a strange comment to make in an open comments area. Surly he is entitled to his opinion (which I agree with incidentally).Out with the ban stick then!

    ReplyDelete
  83. That "5 yard player" sounds just like Lucas watching his direct opposition burst past him (and then Carragher) into our box for Tottenham before forcing Skrtel's own goal!

    ReplyDelete
  84. One more: You give credit to Poulsen for the victory at Bolton. He came on in the dying seconds with the score already 1-0 to Liverpool.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I keep calling for Babel and Jovanovich to play more, especially while their counterparts who are <span>starting consistently</span> neither offer our team the threat of pace nor have been playing well enough to merit their places, yet we keep making excuses and waiting for the fullbacks to do the jobs for Maxi & Kuyt out wide.

    Funnily enough, our worst performer with the "B Team" (Joe Cole) will no doubt remain at the head of the queue to jump straight back into a midfield/forward role with the first team - so much for a clean slate and fresh chance for everybody eh...

    ReplyDelete
  86. I too want a more dominant man in our central midfield, but aside from a few early games, imho Poulsen looks to be a better option than everybody's new favourite, Lucas.  

    Aside from those early poor games, Poulsen has easily been a lot better than Lucas was last season, and looks to be playing the exact same role as Lucas is this season (with maybe a few more forward balls into the opposition box), so I'd give the advantage to Poulsen on account of him being bigger and slightly stronger.

    As I keep saying, the criticisms of Poulsen have been waaay overplayed (worst Liverpool player ever?!?), just as the plaudits for Lucas have been waaay overplayed (seen him being called a legend ffs!!)

    ReplyDelete
  87. so in the game that we won or not loss with poulsen, if he didnt play at the time, we wont win it??? we will surely loss??? cause that is your statistics means for me

    ReplyDelete
  88. As a statistician this is completely flawed. The reasons are too many to elaborate.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Good article, unfortunately im not a fan of Poulsen, with or without statistics...i trust my eyes, and when i have seen Poulsen in the team we have looked negative and defensive. I remember the days when Liverpool completely dominated the game of football, it was played high up the pitch in the opponents half, constant pressure all over the pitch and in those days, we didn't need a 'defensive' midfielder! In essence i'm not criticising Poulsen, just the general defensive tactics of our side, when i watched us away at Birmingham i was embarrassed. They looked like LFC and we looked like BC, it was horrible. I watched Barcelona against Madrid it was majestic, complete dominance, the game played in Madrids half, short quick incisive passing...and they never lost the ball! Just brilliant, like the Liverpool of old. So for me yes Poulson isn't even close to being good enough, we need brilliant ball players, players that never lose the ball, that can pick out a man with a 5 yard pass or a 30 yard pass, that can control a bullet and that will run all day... This just isn't Poulsen, or most of our squad for that matter! It's definitely time for a change, i really want to see lots of technically gifted players at Anfield, not bully boy bruisers! Again look at Barca; Messi, Iniesta, Xavi, Villa, Pedro all small but technical players ...this should be the future at Anfield. Bring on Rijkard! 

    ReplyDelete
  90. Your analysis is flawed and conclusions are flawed.

    It does not matter if he "Started" in a match or was "Subbed" in a match.  It matters what happens when he was on the pitch.  As such, your  table of stats is flawed and your conclusions cannot be accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Not one person on this thread has come up with a credible, factual counter argument.  It's all supposition, conjecture and unfounded exaggerations.  The stats used for Poulsen are valid; just because it conflicts with the personal opinion of people doesn't change that.

    You can keep harping on about how the stats are 'flawed' etc but just saying it doesn't make it true.  

    The same fans saying Poulsen's stats are flawed are the ones constantly using Hodgson's away record stat against him.  Why is that stat okay?  (And others like it).

    Laughably hypocritical.  As usual it's the same thing: if you agree with the stats - or they make someone you like look good - then they're okay.  if you disagree with the stats, they're suddenly wrong, irrelevat, flawed etc.

    Funny that. Utterly predictable though.

    You can keep coming up with all the subjective personal opinion you like - none of that will change the facts: With Poulsen in the team, Liverpool have performed better than when he's not in the team.

    * More clean sheets
    * fewer goals conceded
    * Fewer games lost
    * Higher unbeaten percentage overall

    These are stone cold, irrefutable facts.

    If you can refute them, go ahead.  If you have facts to prove that Poulsen is as bad as you say, POST THEM.  

    Anything else is meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Absolute nonsense.  You can keep saying it but it doesn't make it true.  Provide some factual basis for your opinion; prove that Poulsen is poor on the pitcj.

    You CANNOT be consistently poor and then have the team achieve the results that Poulsen has contributed to.  You do not keep 7 clean sheets in 14 games with a defensive mid that can't defend.  You do not concede less than 1 goal a game with a defensive mid who is a liability. That is the proof that Poulsen is effective on the pitch.

    You can handle the fact that your personal bias against Poulsen has been exposed.  His positive stats don't compute for you, and you do not have the grace to look at his contribution and admit that he'as actually doing a good job.

    ReplyDelete
  93. <span> Poulsens own agent advised Roy that he was not of the required quality to be a Liverpool player and instead he had 4 other players that were much better midfielders, Roy however insisted on signing poulsen. How do I know this information well I can't possibly divulge it, but it is true.  </span>

    I'm sorry but that is not true.  You can't prove it so there's no point saying it.  You seemt o forget that Hodgson has worked with Poulsen before so KNOWS what type of player he is.  Consequently,  it wouldn't matter what some agent said.  Additionally, Hodgson has stated in pulic that he tried to sign Poulsen for Fulham, which again proves that Hodgson knows the player.

    ReplyDelete
  94. <span>how many tackles does poulsen put in in a game?? pretty much zero. </span>

    This is precisely the kind pointless 'counter-argument' so prevalent on this thread. Where is your proof for this?  You've just made it up.  It is nowhere near true, so why are you deliberately trying to make Poulsen look bad?

    You have no evidence for that contention, so it is totally meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  95. <span>Poulson is not up to par as a Lpool player. His performances in the Premier league games the games that count he has been shocking</span>

    Explain why WITH EXAMPLES Poulsen is not 'up to par' as a LFC player.

    Explain why WITH EXAMPLES his performances in the premier league are 'shocking'.

    So shocking that the team achieve better results with him in it.

    He's so under par that the team is unbeaten in 86% of games when he plays; concedes fewer goals and less games.

    If you are going to condemn a player you need more than you inaccurate, unfounded personal opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I do not 'credit' Poulsen with the victory; it counts as an appearance.  I can easily take it out though - it makes his stats look even better.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Agree Jaimie, Poulson has been the victim of the same kind of witch hunt mentality as Ngog and Lucas last year. It always amazes me that the same people that were calling Ngog useless last season when he was unfairly thrust into a sole striker role in an out of form side, are now his biggest fan and calling for Hodgson's head when he doesn't make the squad.

    A lot of fans are going from knee jerk to knee jerk depending on the flavour of the month and its unfortunate for Poulsen that so far this season it has been his turn.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Lucas has been brilliant this season. Man of the match EASILY on more than one occasion.

    He is not a legend obviously. He has been in fantastic form though. You are blind if you think otherwise.

    Can't believe there are people still giving Lucas flack. He is young and talented. Poulsen is old and past it. Poulsen has DEFINITELY not been better than Lucas this season. Get a grip.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Hi Jamie,
    Do you try to sound like an arrogant arsehole or does income naturally?

    ReplyDelete
  100. An interesting post...I too watched with utter admiration at the majestic class demonstrated by Barca against Madrid on Monday...absolutely sublime! I think its a given that every LFC fan, actually evey fan full stop, would love to players of that calibre gracing their teams ranks. However, whilst I wouldnt argue that Poulsen is a flair player, he does the job that he needs to do. The reality is his role is actually quite unglamorous...basically tackle, break up play and feed the ball to the central midfielder for distribution.

    If LFC are almost twice as effective as keeping clean sheets when he plays, then its fair to say he must be doing something right! I haven't checked how consistent the back four line up was in the games he played compared to when he didnt. That said, when he plays I would rather him carry on doing the defensive donkey work that his role dictates rather than seeing him try to be too ambitious and allow the back four to be exposed.

    ReplyDelete
  101. I have not opined that Poulsen is poor on the pitch. I have merely opined that your analysis is flawed and thus your conclusions based on that analysis must be flawed.

    I have no bias against Poulsen, indeed, I support all our players.  I do have a bias against bias statistical usage though, hence my comment your flawed use of statistics in this case and what I consider to be your flawed conclutions based on your flawed statistical usage.

    Further, I would appreciate it if you would keep your comments about my opinions based on what I have stated rather than putting your own words in my mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I agree with your post...some fans have been ridiculously harsh and nasty to Poulsen....I think for some people he represents an easy scapegoat, especially due to his affiliation with RH.

    Its fine to be constructively critical of a player but too be single out and boo someone who has tried his best, when other established players have also not played well is not something i personally like to see.

    Quite simply, being pragmatic about it, even if fans are really disappointed with a particular players performance, singling out one player for such blatant pillorying is only going to have negative effect on his morale.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Jaimie - answer Roy's thread and stop hiding.  You only seem to answer when you can argue by putting the person down.  When someone brings a valid arguement, you ignore it, then say 'bring a valid arguement or i'm right'.

    You do seem to be one who relies a lot on stats when, in this case, stats don't give you even a third of the overall picture.   The other things that haven't been taken in consideration is whether Poulsen was even on the pitch when goals were scored/conceded etc.

    It's just clear that 2 seasons ago we had Alonso and Masch in centre mid and Lucas hardly ever got a game.  Lucas is now considered our best midfielder next to Stevie - and Poulsen is considered to be behind him on the bench.  So, if 2 seasons ago Lucas couldn't get in the team, how is that Poulsen is so good?  Stats prove nothing in this context, you can clearly see that our 'best' midfielder beside Stevie (Mereiles has only just been given that chance) is Lucas yet 2 seasons ago he didn't get a look in.  We're a lot worse in that area now and that is simply why supporters say Poulsen is poor.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I agree with your post...a few fans have been ridiculously harsh and nasty to Poulsen....I think for some he represents an easy scapegoat, especially due to his affiliation with RH.  
     
    Its fine to be constructively critical of a player but too single out and boo someone who has tried his best, when other established players have also not played well is not something that I personally like to see.  
     
    Quite simply, being pragmatic, even if some fans are really disappointed with a particular players performance, singling him out for such blatant pillorying is only going to have negative effect on his morale.

    ReplyDelete
  105. I think evidence can be found in the footage of him playing or by watching him play live at the games Jamie. What next Jamie Stats on why Phil Babb was our greatest ever defender, let it go Jamie and accept the majority are correct about Poulsen.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Stone cold facts that don't even look at the bigger picture.  How as our defence in those games?  Was Agger playing left back?  Johnson or Kelly at right back?  Was Torres or Stevie playing?  These all contribute to whether we may have conceded more or scored more goals (therefore winning of losing).  A win/lose stat does not prove how effective a defensive midfielder is.  If it does, please explain to me how.  You posted stats but not actually said HOW these prove Poulsen is the man responsible for us winning or losing the game.  Just by being on the pitch can't be the reason, else Mr Pacheco is having an awful season (yet some say he's our next best thing!).  It's a team game, not an individual game.  One player can influence a result but can not be the only factor in winning or losing.

    You could run stats to see what effect Kelly has had at right back compared to Johnson.  Probably find he has a better win rate than Johnson, but does that mean he should be replacing him in the England team?  Course not.

    I await an explanation as to how these stats prove Poulsen is responsibile for the wins/losses (and don't just say 'cos they do, facts are irrefutable'.  They're not, they're subjective). 

    ReplyDelete
  107. I would like to see the possesion stats for before and after he comes onto the pitch, I know what they would show, I know from watching our games that when he comes on as a sub we really struggle and virtually capitulate due to his poor positioning and other failing I have mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Jamie your facts are not correct as outlined so your own argument is massively flawed and therefore invalid as having any factual basis of any worth to back up the sensationalist headline, which I think was aimed all along at courting controversy.

    ReplyDelete
  109. While I applaud your research once again, Jamie, and thank you for the hard work of putting all the stats together (and allowing the rest of us a space for debate), I actually disagree with one of your early statemenets

    <span>Q. What is his primary role in the team?</span>
    A. To break up play and stop the other team attacking. To stop goals being scored. To prevent Liverpool from losing.
    Of course football tactics are a matter of considerable art, and cannot be seen as an exact science in any form. However, apart from the keeper, and maybe the CB, I highly disagree that there is any player on the pitch whose job it is to stop the team losing. Saying that in itself is part of the proble, IMO, with Hodgsons approach. For all his defects, Mascherano was agreat DM precisely NOT because he kept the team from losing but because he could track back and get the ball to the AM or wings. The problem with seeing tracking back as the thing that players do when they do not have the ball - i.e. run back and defend - is that it turns the game into the kick and run football. In fact, your article on the problem with the academy highlights this exact problem. In a proper set-up, all players are directed towards the team winning, and only in certain circumstances (i.e. if you are a mid-table team playing the top four, or if you need a point against Barca away from home) should a decent manager consider a more stifling and defensive set-up. THis brings me to my pet annoyance: neither the DM nor the LB and RB are out and out defensive players. Where they are used as out and out defensive players then we are back in the territory of the boring and typicacal old-school English football that we are supposed to have left in the dark ages (although we took it to the world cup!!!). LB and RB especially, in an attacking team formation, are actually supposed to get forward as much as possible, and so I belive that if anyone has been wrongly maligned it is Johnston. Not worth £20 mil perhaps, but actually a good LB if the formation is correct and the other players do their job (Konchesky, I am looking at you, as well as Cara). Then to the DM. Yes, a defensive player in some regards, but primarily a link player. So tracking back is not DEFENSIVE in the sense that he needs to get behind the ball and hoof it away. It is about breaking up mid-field play and getting the pall forward - so defensive in that it is about breaking up play, but actually attacking and strategic in that this allows for the midfield to be more creative. Then finally,
    These figures indisputably prove that Poulsen is having a specific, measurable positive impact on the team.
    Jamie, while I applaud your efforts, even you cannot surely belive that a statistic that shows Poulsons involvement versus non-involvement cannot be an indisputable FACT. It points strongly, but there are many variables. This is actually just a point of order, although I do appreciate your work

    ReplyDelete
  110. Andrew - please stop with the constant overcompensating, i.e. always trying to make out in *every* post that you go to games.  Even if that's true, that doesn't give you any greater insight into Poulsen's ability or impact.  You are assuming that his possession stats are poor; you do not *know*.  Until you have objective evidence to disprove what I have argued then you don't have a credible argument.

    This. for example, is just absolutely false, and illustrates your negative mindset about Poulsen:

    <span>I know from watching our games that when he comes on as a sub we really struggle and virtually capitulate due to his poor positioning and other failing I have mentioned.</span>

    Absolutely untrue, and I would actually call this lies.  Please show, with examples, how Liverpool 'really struggle' when Poulsen comes on as a sub, and how the team 'virtually capitulates'.  

    Poulsen has come on a sub TWICE. This season.  He came on against Bolton; Liverpool won the game.  He came on against Wigan; the game was drawn.

    Please explain how either of these results constitute 'capitulation' and Liverpool 'struggling'.

    You should be embarrased by such outrageous misinformation.

    ReplyDelete
  111. No, it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I think this post makes absolute sense regarding the issue and discredits the original post made by Jamie. I would like stats on the number of attacks broken up by Poulsen as an individual, I have not seen one, nor have I seen a commited challenge. 

    ReplyDelete
  113. <span>Stone cold facts that don't even look at the bigger picture.  How as our defence in those games?  Was Agger playing left back?  Johnson or Kelly at right back?  Was Torres or Stevie playing?  These all contribute to whether we may have conceded more or scored more goals (therefore winning of losing). </span>

    None of this matters.  You just want it to matter because you refuse to accept that Poulsen is having a positive impact.

    Do you consider these things when you slag off Hodgson's away record, or when you criticise Konchesky? NO.  You only raise these issues when the stats do not conform with your expectations.

    If I posted stats that showed that Liverpool lost more games with Poulsen and conceded more goals, would you be saying the same?!  NO.  You would be agreeing because they fit with your expectations.

    This is mindset of the modern fan, and it's is totally transparent. Fairness goes out the window, and every stat that doesn't fit individual expectations is wrong.

    <span>You posted stats but not actually said HOW these prove Poulsen is the man responsible for us winning or losing the game.</span>

    *sigh*   I have NOT argued that Poulsen is 'responsible for us winning or losing'.  You have totally got the wrong end of the stick. I have merely showed how the team performs WITH and WITHOUT Poulsen in the team; That is very different to the way you have interpreted it.

    <span>You could run stats to see what effect Kelly has had at right back compared to Johnson.  Probably find he has a better win rate than Johnson, but does that mean he should be replacing him in the England team?  Course not</span>

    Amazing.  What does England have to do with this?!  Nothing.  If Kelly's stats show that Liverpool is more effective at right back then he should absolutely be first choice right back. That is obvious.

    <span>I await an explanation as to how these stats prove Poulsen is responsibile for the wins/losses (and don't just say 'cos they do, facts are irrefutable'.  They're not, they're subjective). </span>

    And the facts I have presented ARE irrefutable; they are not subjective.  If they are, explain why. 

    ReplyDelete
  114. Well Said!

    Jaimie was supposed to answer my first post today...never did: he knows he is wrong, but can't admit it. FACT.
    <img></img>

    ReplyDelete
  115. <span>Ok you're basing the value of the player by the win/loss ratio? 

    No.  You are massively oversimplifying things.  It is not about the 'value' of the player; it is about his impact on the team, and I have showed LFC's results with and without Poulsen to prove that.  And it is *obviously* about more than win/loss ration.  I have looked at goals conceded, clean sheets, overall unbeaten ration etc, not just win/loss ration.  So please don't twist what I've posted; if you're going to argue against it then do so fairly.

    You could imagine a situation where Poulsen or any other player on the field plays badly, and where the 4 defenders and the goalkeeper have blinder. Your use of the stat is just IRRELEVANT. </span>

    What possible relevance is this?  It makes no sense and has not factual or objective basis. You can imagine *any* situation you like; unless you can back it up with proper examples/facts, it is irrelevant.

    <span>But, according to yourself you should use stats relevant to the position  of the midfielder to judge his performances, which is, basically, what you didn't do here...you didn't provide any stats analysis related to "completed passes/successful tackles/any other parameters DIRECTLY linked to the DM job/etc" in percentage. </span>

    Why don't you explain how such stats are relevant in the wider scheme of things.  How does knowing how many tackles Poulsen made make any difference?  Those stats in isolation prove nothing.  They do not show his overall impact on the team.

    The stats I have provide clearly show Poulsen's direct impact on the team: It is a FACT that without Poulsen in the team, Liverpool:

    * Lose more games
    * Concede more goals
    * Have a lower unbeaten % overall

    Just because you don't like the conclusions you want to refine things even further until you come across some irrelevant stat that proves in your mind that Poulsen is crap.

    As I've said already elsewhere - it's funny how you and others don't call for this in-depth analysis of Hodgson when you're busy slagging him off and calling for his head.  Suddenly, it's okay to focus on the his away record without looking into *why* the games are being lost, or the individual performances of players, or the overarching context.

    Complete and utter hypocrisy.

    As usual: if the stats don't conform to what you want them to, you'll attack them; if they meet your expectations; you'll embrace them.

    <span>Meanwhile, you're just proving that stats, as factual as they are, worth nothing if you don't interpret them correctly here: FACT! </span>

    I really can't believe how I'm wasting my time with people with your inflexible, narrow-minded viewpoint. The stats are apparently worth nothing because you disagree with the conclusions?!  Nonsense.  The stats are totally valid, and any fair-minded person can see that.

    The air of triumphalism in your post is totally not warranted.  You have not provided any kind of credible, factual counter argument.  When you can do that, and do it *fairly*, then we'll talk.

    ReplyDelete
  116. <span><span>Steve - when you can leave comments without making false assertions about what posts I respond to, then your posts will stay on the site.</span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  117. More baseless conjecture.

    <span>Lucas is now considered our best midfielder next to Stevie - and Poulsen is considered to be behind him on the bench.  So, if 2 seasons ago Lucas couldn't get in the team, how is that Poulsen is so good? <span>
    </span></span>

    Why is this relevant?

    <span>We're a lot worse in that area now and that is simply why supporters say Poulsen is poor.</span>

    Right - so you're arguing that Liverpool's horrific form last season - when Lucas played most games - is 'a lot worse' than now?!

    Yes, that makes sense.  

    Tell me: At what point this season did Liverpool go on a run of winning only 1 game in 10?  At what this season did we lose 7 games out of 8?  At what point this season did we go on a 4 game losing run?

    Do you actually even think about what you write before you write it?  No, because you're too obsessed with trying to make Poulsen look bad that you don't even think.

    Last season was *much* worse than this season (so far), and Lucas' stats from last season do not come close to touching Poulsen's.  And if people really want me to do an article proving that, I will.

    ReplyDelete
  118. No - the stats indisputably show that with Poulsen in the team, Liverpool:

    * Are likely to lose less
    * Are likely to concede less

    This is not arguable.  It is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  119. What about Konchesky? I would love to see that analysis. 
    thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Actually, doing a ten minute exercise on Guardian chalkboards, the games that Poulson has played in he seems to be decent when on the ball. His pass success rate in the games you mentioned is actually decent, although he is less successful with link-up play - i.e. going forward, and much of his passing is back to defenders, the goalkeaper, or closer forward. This is fine, and may reflect the poor tactics that Roy uses, in which the gap between mid and forwards is huge - but this is another topic (which I have strong opinions on, by the way). In tracking back and doing the role of a defensive mid he is less successful - his tackles and interceptions rate is decent but not staggering. THe biggest difference between Masch and Poulson is the amount of getting forward. Poulson puts in many more passes on average, and has a similar success rate to Masch. But Masch passes going forward, and is more successful in assists and in getting the ball wide and forward. So Masch plays higher up the field as well as from deep, whereas Poulson is more like a classic defensive player.
    Now, all these stats are merely pieces of what makes a whole player, so I cannot make conjecture about his value to the team based soley on this. What I can conjecture, however, is the kind of player that he is, and where and how he feels comfortable. It appears to me as if he is a slightly more conservative defensive player, a solid passer, but not attack minded. Is this a problem? Not necessarily. Perhaps, in the end, Poulson is maligned and scapegoated for what fans feel is a general lack of attack-mindedness in the Hodgson set up, with Poulson representing that (since he was one of Roy's first purchases). If this is the case, then I am one of those fans. I agree, it is perhaps unfair to malign Poulson for playing the game he plays best - and presumably for which the manager bought him. So once again, we need to scrutinise the management. Whether Poulson was a wise buy, given his age too, is a question we need to ask of Roy.

    As you youtself have suggested Jamie, we need to give the manager more time before the jury makes its decision on the manager, although some fans are a little purturbed at present.

    ReplyDelete
  121. You better go and do it then.  Konchesky is more deserving of (fair) criticism than Poulsen. I wrote this article because the criticism levelled at Poulsen is baseless, unfair and totally without *any* foundation in fact.

    ReplyDelete
  122. JK



    You made a few valid points.  However, fact is Poulsen is poor.  He is a DM but cannot do his job properly and stop Liverpool conceding all the goals when he has played.  Also, we are talking about Liverpool not some two-bit team!  Can you see Poulsen playing for Spurs, MUTD, Chelsea, Arsenal?  No.  But you can certainly see him playing for the likes of Fulham...!

    Also, it is the norm for one person to be wrong all the time and not for everybody to be wrong all the time.  You are in the former category.  I look forward to your lawyerly wannabee reply with remarks like proof and evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  123. <span>However, fact is Poulsen is poor.  </span>

    *shoots self*

    Are you for real?  

    1. Please explain how it is a 'fact' that Poulsen is 'poor'.  You've made the contention, now prove it.

    <span>He is a DM but cannot do his job properly and stop Liverpool conceding all the goals when he has played. </span>

    This kind if ill-considered comment is precisely why the standard of modern fandom has plummeted so much.  The facts completely contradict you; the facts prove that Poulsen IS doing a good job stopping LFC conceding goals.  Why do you ignore them?

    Goals conceded WITHOUT Poulsen in the team = 14
    Goals conceded WITH Poulsen in the team = 11

    Liverpool only concede a goal every 92 minutes with Poulsen in the team.  

    I can't be bothered to waste time on ignorant replies like this any longer.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Yes it does.  If it doesn't, prove it.  The stats in the table above prove what I said.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Jaimie you toad, when will you get kissed and turn in to a prince. Oh wait, nobody will kiss you bar the fat, hairy, handlebar moustache wearing gentleman that lives down your road.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Lol he came ona gasint Bolton for 1 min

    ReplyDelete
  127. Let's agree on something.  We, all Liverpool, fans want the club to do well.  No question.  However, the game is also one of opinions.  Mine differs to yours on Poulsen.  But you cannot say I am wrong.  In the same way you cannot say you are right. 
    Again, if he was as good as you clearly believe he is, why did Juventus let him go?  And, why weren't other clubs in the market for him.
    Poulsen is decent.  No good enough for Liverpool.  He makes Paul Stewart look world class....!

    ReplyDelete
  128. I explained why I removed those two games, just as you get annoyed with people who only read one aspect of what you have written. The two games I removed were against teams who sit with 11 men behind the ball, games where we don't generally need a tough tackling Didi Hamman type. If you read it in context instead of higlighting a little bit to try and write off what I wrote and maybe had the humility to admit I had a point....even if you don't agree with all I've written.

    In simple terms, the games were a DM was very much needed - the games were teams take the game to us and don't sit and defend with 11 men that Poulsen started we DON'T have a good record.

    I will add this before you try and bundle me in with this group of terrible sheep-like fans you have created to suit your argument...
    I don't have anything against Poulsen and whilst he's a Liverpool player i'll support him, but he clearly isn't upto the standard we are used to, regardless of single angle Stats, he has perhaps improved a little in recent games, but a 3-0 home win against bottom WHU is hardly the best example.

    Roy acknowledges his lack of form, as does Poulsen himself.

    Lucas has improved though and could finally be becoming the player we need in there.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Poulsen was an excellent midfield player, he is still good at what he does but he would not set the world on fire and I dont expect Barcelona or real madrid to be coming in for him, unlike the last two midfielders we had. Its not that poulsen is a bad player the frustration for me is he replaced a better player than him, masch was better and would be first team choice if fit for every game, not just the mediocre games. From the above list its shows that yes it is an improvement when he plays, which I agree with your stats, however the teams we are playing against other than Man Utd are teams we are expected to win against. You argue that it is the attacking options that are letting us down, which i agree with also, however it is the midfield who are there to provide the strikers with quality balls and support so it does work hand in hand, thats why it is a team game. My argument has never been that he is rubbish (ulike Konchesky) and shouldnt play as he has shown glipses of quality and he has played at the highest level so will always give you this. My argument is that over the years we have been loosing world class and replacing them with mediocre players or players like poulsen who have seen their best at other clubs. What happened to us getting like for like or better for worse. Poulsen will do us a job in midfield however hypothetically a midfield containing Poulsen, Lucas and gerrard would get eaten alive by a midfield containing Alonso, Masch and Gerrard. This is the reason why I am personally against this type of signing as we are going backwards and statistics, like league position, no chapions league prove it. If we want to be regarded as the best club, we need to sign the best players, although Poulsen is good, when coming up against the best oposition as a team liverpool on paper are way off.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Wow Jaimie

    He has palyed in 4 home league games agasint relatively weak opposition, (West brom. Sunderland, Blackpool and West Ham with the massive yield of 7 pts/ 12 pts) away form home it is 5pts from 4 games , wioth admittedly tougher opposition. i noticed that Poulsen also did not paly agsint Arsenal(h) Man City (a) Spurs (a) Chelsea (h), You cna pretend that this means nothign but it does.

    Also, i see the home game agasint Napoli in ur list, its funny that when Poulsen left the field wer were 0-1 down, he left the pitch and we went on to win 3-1, how that game can be used to enhance Poulsens case is beyond me

    ReplyDelete
  131. poulsen juz been started when liverppol face weaker team

    ReplyDelete
  132. The one thing i can see form ur stats is that Poulsen is cleary not good enough for the premier leauge and hsud be only used in the europa league, there is a reason he is not chosen for our tougher assignments and it is easy games only that maek his record look impressive.  BTW i  have looked absolutely everywhere4 adn cannot find individual stats on palyer (passing, takcles etc) please help if u can

    ReplyDelete
  133. Jaimie, if you offered a set of stats that compared CP against a static set of team mates with CP being replaced by ANother(s) your data would hold a little more credence. This data, although insightful proves very little.
    Most fans can see that he's not quite there yet but, how long does he get? well that's up to the manager. I thought CP would be an interesting signing and he does fill a hole, excellent for Seville 4-5 years ago but not so good for the Old Lady. Not lived up to my expectations yet and that's what it's about when we judge new players. Is it not? 

    ReplyDelete
  134. you mug kanwarr or what ever you name is, the bottom line is old son is;

    if you have  amidfield its job is not there to just sit and do nothing, lucus and raul are far better on the ball, lucus has made more tackles this year in the opta stats, so shove that up you mate.

    poulsen should never have been brought at his age, we sold a young, internantional and replaced him with poulsen the mug, he is nealy at the better and of his playing days, he is slow, he can not head the ball, he doesnt offer a thing in attack, but yet you just one donkey that does nothing apart from so called sitting midfielder, and yet if you know aht that role is then you will kknow that role is meant to do alot more than then just being a lazy play sitting in the middle of the park.

    poulsen should be sold, id ratherv have spearing lucus or raul there any day and your so wrong about liverpool having poulsen in their team, funny that, i did not see many clubs lining up to buy the shite poulsen... so sshut ya mouth and try knowing the game you mug

    ReplyDelete
  135. In your stats, you claim we have won 6 matches WITH Poulsen. According to your table, that'd be INCLUDING the Napoli (h) match and the Bolton (a) match. Against Napoli, we were losing when Poulsen was taken off, we won the match without him. Against Bolton, he came on with like 2 mins to go, when we were already winning.

    If you're actually classing them as wins for Poulsen, it leads me to implore... do you actually watch the matches?

    ReplyDelete
  136. I explained why I removed those two games, just as you get annoyed with people who only read one aspect of what you have written. The two games I removed were against teams who sit with 11 men behind the ball, games where we don't generally need a tough tackling Didi Hamman type. If you read it in context instead of higlighting a little bit to try and write off what I wrote and maybe had the humility to admit I had a point....even if you don't agree with all I've written.

    In simple terms, the games were a DM was very much needed - the games were teams take the game to us and don't sit and defend with 11 men that Poulsen started we DON'T have a good record.

    I will add this before you try and bundle me in with this group of terrible sheep-like fans you have created to suit your argument...
    I don't have anything against Poulsen and whilst he's a Liverpool player i'll support him, but he clearly isn't upto the standard we are used to, regardless of single angle Stats, he has perhaps improved a little in recent games, but a 3-0 home win against bottom WHU is hardly the best example.

    Roy acknowledges his lack of form, as does Poulsen himself.

    Lucas has improved though and could finally be becoming the player we need in there.

    ReplyDelete
  137. "Poulsen has come on a sub TWICE. This season.  He came on against Bolton; Liverpool won the game.  He came on against Wigan; the game was drawn."

    Were we winning, losing or drawing when he came on in both cases?  Where any goals scored against us after he came on?

    ReplyDelete
  138. Might be worth lookin at some chalkboards to see his tackling, interceptions and passing stats.

    ReplyDelete
  139. This is why I think Jamies' use of stats is flawed

    He awards Poulsen an "appearance" win, yet when Poulsen was on the pitch, we were losing, it was not until he left the field of play that Liverpool turned things around.  He also awards Poulsen an "appearance" win when he contributed very little (Bolton).

    One can easily understand the phrase "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

    ReplyDelete
  140. Jamie you always do your research and make a convincing arguement, but you too miss out alot of the Facts, by dressing up your results, your facts are correct but please take alook at the games he has played in, these are the games we should do well in but rarely do, (ie so called lesser teams and Uefa)? and the big games he has played in we have lossed ie Man Utd, the guy is poor even you can't put enough spin on this!

    ReplyDelete
  141. In court one as asked to swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

    Selective fact giving does not tell the whole truth and is an example of deception 101.

    Jamie needs to learn to tell the whole truth rather than the selective bits that back up his agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  142. I want Poulsen to succeed as a fan of the team I really want him to, however we can only judge him on what we see, do you think shanks looked at stats, No, Paisley, No, I could go on and on but the eyes don't lie and most educated fans can tell what is going on and who is any good, Take Cheyrou for instance, the fans realised he was not upto it, Take Paul Stewart, the fans could see he was slow and cumbersome. We can see by looking at a player, watching his commitment his positioning, his technical ability in the tackle, not only winning a tackle but also retaining possesion, ask yourself this how many time has poulsen just put a foot out when he should have challenged harder, how many times has he been left looking out of position, how many goals have we conceeded that have been mainly down to HIS inability to manage the pace of the game. I can see your point trying to defend the lad and I would love him to succeed.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Jamie you do your research and always present the facts this is true but what you do not mention amongst your concluesion is the games he has started in we SHOULD be doing well in (the so called lesser teams and UEFA compitition), but we dont always do, the times he has been up against top oppostion ie. Man Utd, we have losted. he is very very average even you can not put a enough spin on your own so called band wagon, even mentioing his name in the same sentence as mascherano is a joke in its self!

    ReplyDelete
  144. Attention seeking again Jamie,
    Is he half the player Didi, Masch or even Momo was? I rest my case.
    Nothing agains the lad but not good enough for us.

    PS this is not a free speach site. Jamie pulls the replies that he dosent like!

    ReplyDelete
  145. hahahahahahahahaha

    what a ted

    ReplyDelete
  146. Here is a stat for you

    we are shite, Poulsons shite and Ollys Shite

    Wasnt that long ago you were stating Rafa was shite

    well can you see Olly winning us the league or European Cup?

    what a quilt you are Kanwar

    ReplyDelete
  147. The irony being that you have probably never seen Paul Stewart play for Liverpool, either live or via video footage.  It's just another meanginless soundbyte.

    ReplyDelete
  148. I am convinced that you do not go to anfield and watch these players play. Poulsen, by his own admission has not played well, Hodgson has backed up this by publically stating this, which i did not agree with. From your list of games that Poulsen has played in only Man united sticks out. Your figures do not point out the fact that this is not a liverpool player. liverpool fans can see with their eyes that he does not add anything of note to this team, whereas Masch used to run his backside off to get a tackle in, poulsen does not, you are a poor liverpool fan and i really question your human skill set. I am sure that you are a qualified accountant because that can only explain your complete faith in figures, when the truth sits before your eyes and human judgement and direct quotes from parties involved go against your theory.

    ReplyDelete
  149. He goes backwards more times than Lucas. Infact when he is on the pitch and we are winning, it still looks like he is playing for a draw. His passing is awful and more often than not finds an opposition player, he cant tackle because half the time he cant get anywhere near a player because he doesnt know how to run and has the turning circle of a juggernaught. He slows play down even more than it already is. He doesnt cover enough ground quick enough to be an effective holding midfielder. There is a reason he was named the worst player to play for Juventus of the past 10 years. And it shows he isnt good enough seeing as he couldnt get in the team ahead of Sissoko, a player deemed not good enough for our first team and was shipped out making way for a permanent position for Mascherano. He only ever really played the odd cup game and a run in the europa league for Juventus because he was awful in Italy. And for a player who plays at such a slow pace too, just like Seria A is definately bad when you think he couldnt even fit in there. And for £4.5 million its an absolute joke and thats before we get to his age of 30-31.

    ReplyDelete
  150. what are his stats in the area of tackling. if he's doing a great job of breaking up the play then he should be dominating the tackling charts. also his passing accuracy. one of the things that made players like masch, makelele (sp?) and essien so good was the fact that after they won the ball they rarely made a bad pass. now i'm not saying that poulsen is making bad passes (even though i do recall on a few occassion where he kindly gave it to the feet of the opponent) but i am just asking for you to post some stats that could show how his individual efforts are benifiting liverpool.

    ReplyDelete
  151. This is not the right statistics to back up your claim. To base your claims on the team as a whole to find out how good one single player is, is useless. 

    To proove my point, when Bale came to Tottenham, they did not win with Bale in the team for 24 games. This should according to you mean that he is a shitty player. Am I right?
    Another example is Gerrard, two seasons ago where the team had a higher winning rate without him, than with him in the team. Does this mean he is a bad player too?

    When ever you do a scientific research, you have to base it on variables that measure what they are supposed to. Yours do not. There are too many factors playing a part in a team win or loss, and in this case Poulsen is just one of them.

    Your proof is non existent.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Jaimie, your stat research is commendable. clearly you put a lot of effort in. But are you really suggesting he is a good player or rather just defending him against the 'blind' criticism??

    The stats you provide are interesting put you CANNOT put them against the stats for games "Without" him without providing some index as to the quality (or perceived quality) of the teams he plays against. with the exception of the Man UTd game, all the games he played in were against lesser sides and we were very poor. He plays against bottom half of the league sides and Europa League only BECAUE HE'S POOR!!!
    Of course we concede more goals against the tougher sides... and thats with the better players playing - if he was good enough he would still be playing in those games

    If i play table tennis well with both hands but better with my right and play a bunch of kids with my left and adults with my right then of course the stats are going to look comparable but YOU HAVE TO INDEX the quality comparison. Otherwise your stats are nonsense. you should know this

    ReplyDelete
  153. Interesting analysis but I think you've missed an important factor. Of the 6 clean sheets Poulsen has been involved in (I'm excuding Bolton game as Poulsen came on on 89 minutes), in 4 of the 6 he has started next to Lucas. That means that we have had two defensive midfielders on the pitch which surely means that as a unit we are more defensive and are likely to concede less goals.

    Trabzonspor (h) 1-0 Lucas started
    West Brom 1-0 Lucas started
    Birmingham 0-0 Lucas started
    Utrecht 0-0 Lucas started

    Napoli (a) 0-0 No Lucas
    West Hame 3-0 No Lucas

    In fact when Poulsen has played without Lucas next to him we have tended to concede siginificantly more goals.

    Man Utd 3-2 No Lucas 3 goals conceded
    Sunderland 2-2 No Lucas 2 goals conceded
    Blackpool 2-1 No Lucas 2 goals conceded
    Steaua 1-1 No Lucas 1 goal conceded

    These stats tell me that when Poulsen is next to Lucas we are better defenisively and concede less goals. Without Lucas, Pouslen has only actually been involved in two clean sheets.

    Of the 5 wins Poulsen has been involved in (again I exclude the Bolton game) Lucas has started in 3 of them. The Napoli game which we won, all the goals were scored after Poulsen went off when we were 1-0 down, so i don't think any part of that win can be attributed to Pouslen. In fact two of the goals scored were after Lucas came on in that game.

    Again stats alone don't tell the full story.

    ReplyDelete
  154. While I commend the effort the conclusion drawn from the analysis is slightly flawed. With only 2-3 berths for the CM position Poulsen has to be compared against the likes of Gerrard, Mereiles and Lucas when they too have played in CM. To not compare Poulsen's stats against our other midfielders lacks value. In addition the minutes on pitch stat is more valuable than the started stat.

    He ain't as bad as most people think...but he ain't very good either.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Once again you are talking nonsense Jamie. You can send anyone out on the pitch to "break up play". What we really need is a player who knows what to do with the ball when he's won it. That's why Poulsen is not good enough to play for Liverpool - END OF.

    ReplyDelete
  156. I think that some of the criticism has been over the top, as it was with Lucas last year, but he is a slow player, and there is nothing wrong with wanting a bit more pace in front of the back four. I think the stats are useful, but can be deceptive, because, presumably, these stats make Poulsen a better player than Reina.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Firstly. I appreciate your efforts in accumulating ‘facts’ to support your argument. However, after reading your articles, I find that more often than not, your sole aim seems to prove you are the only pundit among the fans of Liverpool. Hence you pick upon ‘facts’ in every case and argue that u have ‘facts’ to back your claim, the rest of us who comment on your blog do not.
    Although some of your articles provide an insight, and facts that are otherwise ignored, this article on Poulsen seems the most pointless article you have come up with so far. Yet again it is a case where you have tried your best to prove who the pundit is, by distancing yourself from the criticism he faces.
    Christian Poulsen no doubt is an experienced campaigner having played in many of the top leagues so far. I had a sense of optimism when he was transferred here hoping that he will prove a good temporary replacement for masch. Even in the earlier games, though it was clear he wasn’t playing to my expectations, I backed him and saw glimpses which told me he could do the job. However 14 games have passed, but he really hasn’t settled in, hasn’t been able to adapt to the premier league at all. And this has to be clear to anyone who analyses the player’s performances to this extent. Am surprised it seems contrary to you.
    continued. 

    ReplyDelete
  158. People form these opinions of Poulsen after actually watching him play not compiling some silly skewed stats that outline how the team performed, not one man!

    Are you saying all of these results were down to Christian Poulsen's performance??......no, thought not!

    Christian Poulsen is not good enough for Livepool FC.......FACT!!

    End of debate

    ReplyDelete
  159. Firstly. I appreciate your efforts in accumulating ‘facts’ to support your argument. However, after reading your articles, I find that more often than not, your sole aim seems to prove you are the only pundit among the fans of Liverpool. Hence you pick upon ‘facts’ in every case and argue that u have ‘facts’ to back your claim, the rest of us who comment on your blog do not.
    Although some of your articles provide an insight, and facts that are otherwise ignored, this article on Poulsen seems the most pointless article you have come up with so far. Yet again it is a case where you have tried your best to prove who the pundit is, by distancing yourself from the criticism he faces.
    Christian Poulsen no doubt is an experienced campaigner having played in many of the top leagues so far. I had a sense of optimism when he was transferred here hoping that he will prove a good temporary replacement for masch. Even in the earlier games, though it was clear he wasn’t playing to my expectations, I backed him and saw glimpses which told me he could do the job. However 14 games have passed, but he really hasn’t settled in, hasn’t been able to adapt to the premier league at all. And this has to be clear to anyone who analyses the player’s performances to this extent. Am surprised it seems contrary to you.
    continued 

    ReplyDelete
  160. Without facts, but based on what WE have seen of him in the games he has played, I come up with the following facts.
    <p><span><span>1.<span>       </span></span></span>As <span> </span>Trev has argued he IS a 5 yard player for exactly those reasons he has put forth. He is a Defensive midfielder as you say. He is an exact replacement for masch. In the case of masch he would always close down the opponents, and was a work horse, tirelessly closing down and tackling hard but in most cases fair. In Poulsen’s case you find him 5 yards away from the player he is supposed to close down, mark or tackle. But you somehow don’t seem to agree to this point. He isn’t doing anything close to what he is supposed to be doing! He is not performing his role in the team!
    </p><p><span><span>2.<span>       </span></span></span>After these matches I have concluded that he is too old for the premier league. He is too slow as a result. This being the sole reason why he is a 5 yard player as stated above.
    </p><p><span><span>3.<span>       </span></span></span>In most of the games I have seen him having a lack of understanding of his team mates’ movements. Many a time he finds himself in the wrong positions when we have the possession. And in cases where we have been pressed in our penalty box, as in the game against Birmingham- Lucas had been providing a shield to the ball so that poulsen<span>  </span>could clear it upfield, but you find poulsen losing possession inside the penalty box which led to a shot that had Reina in full stretch. This is just ONE instance. There have been many such instances. It has been to poulsen’s luck that these instances have not resulted in goals. If they had been, there would be no such thing as facts to back your claim.
    </p><p><span><span>4.<span>       </span></span></span>Have you forgotten his hand ball against sunderland? Simply awful defending. So here is my stat. Goals conceded so cheaply-poulsen(1)
    </p><p><span><span>5.<span>       </span></span></span>As a defensive midfielder he not only has a primary job of putting in the tackles (Fair tackles), closing down movements, and marking tightly, but in possession he releases the other midfielders and sends in good passes. Masch did this job perfectly. In poulsen’s case, the tackles he has put in have been so rash, he has been lucky to escape bookings for almost all his tackles. But this won’t happen for too long. It is a matter of time when he goes into the book.
    </p><p><span><span>6.<span>       </span></span></span>Thus based on what has been seen of poulsen by not only me but all ardent Liverpool supporters who have watched the matches with a keen eye, I can conclude he has simple not done his role in the team. I exclude you in this list of supporters because you seem to depend on stats to prove your claim. STATISTICS CAN SIMPLY NOT PROVE MY CLAIMS WRONG EVEN IF THEY WERE TO PROVE THAT THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN GOOD WHEN HE HAS PLAYED.
    </p><p>continued
    </p>

    ReplyDelete
  161. Without facts, but based on what WE have seen of him in the games he has played, I come up with the following facts.
    As <span> </span>Trev has argued he IS a 5 yard player for exactly those reasons he has put forth. He is a Defensive midfielder as you say. He is an exact replacement for masch. In the case of masch he would always close down the opponents, and was a work horse, tirelessly closing down and tackling hard but in most cases fair. In Poulsen’s case you find him 5 yards away from the player he is supposed to close down, mark or tackle. But you somehow don’t seem to agree to this point. He isn’t doing anything close to what he is supposed to be doing! He is not performing his role in the team!
    After these matches I have concluded that he is too old for the premier league. He is too slow as a result. This being the sole reason why he is a 5 yard player as stated above.
    In most of the games I have seen him having a lack of understanding of his team mates’ movements. Many a time he finds himself in the wrong positions when we have the possession. And in cases where we have been pressed in our penalty box, as in the game against Birmingham- Lucas had been providing a shield to the ball so that poulsen<span>  </span>could clear it upfield, but you find poulsen losing possession inside the penalty box which led to a shot that had Reina in full stretch. This is just ONE instance. There have been many such instances. It has been to poulsen’s luck that these instances have not resulted in goals. If they had been, there would be no such thing as facts to back your claim.
    Have you forgotten his hand ball against sunderland? Simply awful defending. So here is my stat. Goals conceded so cheaply-poulsen(1)
    As a defensive midfielder he not only has a primary job of putting in the tackles (Fair tackles), closing down movements, and marking tightly, but in possession he releases the other midfielders and sends in good passes. Masch did this job perfectly. In poulsen’s case, the tackles he has put in have been so rash, he has been lucky to escape bookings for almost all his tackles. But this won’t happen for too long. It is a matter of time when he goes into the book.
    Thus based on what has been seen of poulsen by not only me but all ardent Liverpool supporters who have watched the matches with a keen eye, I can conclude he has simple not done his role in the team. I exclude you in this list of supporters because you seem to depend on stats to prove your claim. STATISTICS CAN SIMPLY NOT PROVE MY CLAIMS WRONG EVEN IF THEY WERE TO PROVE THAT THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN GOOD WHEN HE HAS PLAYED.
    continued

    ReplyDelete
  162. The statistics that you have taken into account are team statistics, not player statistics. So ultimately I conclude your statistics are baseless to prove that poulsen has performed well and hence he shouldn’t slagged off.
    If you wish to prove that poulsen has performed well, you should back your claims with statistics such as minutes of possession he has had, tackles he has made successfully, unsuccessful tackles, bookings, assists(hand balls, penalties given) to the opposition, successful passes made, unsuccessful passes made etc. I am sure this will be your next assignment for your blog, but I advice you do not get into it, because it is impossible that you prove the rest of us wrong with ’facts and Poulsen player stats’.
    Lastly, I am one among the rest who have commented on this article without stats to back my claim. But it is simply because we are not as jobless as you are. There is this famous saying” SEEING IS BELIEVING”. And based on what all of us-ARDENT LIVERPOOL SUPPORTERS have seen, WE CONCLUDE THAT POULSEN IS TRASH AND SIMPLY DOESN’T DESERVE TO PULL THE LIVERPOOL SHIRT. Facts and stats are not required to back this claim Jaimie.
    And it is well known for ages that the Liverpool supporters are among the best for their judgement and support of their players, managers and owners. They make their judgements accurately and not blindly. They back their team, managers even in the toughest of situations that the team faces. They lift their players with their support. And they do not slag off a player or a manager without a genuine rhyme or reason. And if they do it on a regular basis, it clearly indicates that they have seen trash. As in the case of Poulsen, <span> </span>and Roy.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Rubbish, baseless, pointless statistics that simply aint worth reading.......stop wasting your time!

    ReplyDelete
  164. <span>And it is well known for ages that the Liverpool supporters are among the best for their judgement and support of their players, managers and owners. They make their judgements accurately and not blindly. They back their team, managers even in the toughest of situations that the team faces. They lift their players with their support. And they do not slag off a player or a manager without a genuine rhyme or reason. And if they do it on a regular basis, it clearly indicates that they have seen trash. As in the case of Poulsen, <span> </span>and Roy.  </span>

    That has to be the most naive, inaccurate and blatantly false view of Liverpool fans I've ever heard.  You clearly have no idea how fans really are.  This view just renders everything else you said null and void.  I'm not wasting  my time debating with someone who has such a false view of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  165. You conveniently ommited the games which poulsen missed, which included the strength of Arsenal, Chelsea, Man city and Everton. Would this not have suited your agenda? This is lame statistical analysis at its worst! It has about as much depth as a puddlel of piss!!

    ReplyDelete
  166. I am not a Poulsen hater, nor am I interested in PROVING whether he is poor or not as you request. However there is a glaring flaw in your argument.

    You have applied team performance stats to a single player. This is quite clearly capable of skewing any argument depending on the results you want to achieve.

    There were 21 other players and 3 officials on the pitch that could have been deciding factors in the games Poulsen played in, which you have not accounted for in your "analysis".

    While I don't doubt that Poulsen is better than most think, your method proves only that he has played in a certain number of games and illustrates the proprtion of wins, draws and losses of those games. If you wanted to form a credible argument, then you would be better off combining what you have with with stats pertaining to Poulsen's actual contribution, in terms of tackles made, attacking moves broken up and successful passes made; and compare him to other players in his position.

    On a personal level, you seem to consistently frame posts and replies in such a way as to increase antagonism and conflict, with your fellow fans no less. Obviously there are idiotic, no-nothing Liverpool fans who think they know it all, but you wont change any minds, or effectively win arguments by saying so.

    ReplyDelete
  167. You conveniently ommited the games which poulsen missed, which included the strength of Arsenal, Chelsea, Man city and Everton. Would this not have suited your agenda? This is lame statistical analysis at its worst! It has about as much depth as a puddlel of piss!!

    ReplyDelete
  168. You conveniently ommited the games which poulsen missed, which included the strength of Arsenal, Chelsea, Man city and Everton. Would this not have suited your agenda? This is lame statistical analysis at its worst! It has about as much depth as a puddle of piss!!

    ReplyDelete
  169. Gosh, the stupidity of some people is truly something to behold.  And no, I make no apologu for calling you stupid; wilfully stupid people deserve to be called stupid.

    How did I 'conveniently' omit the games which Poulsen missed?

    The analysis is about Poulsen's IMPACT ON THE TEAM WHEN HE PLAYS.  Obvioiusly, when he doesn't play he is not having an impact on the team.

    This is a joke, right?  That's the only reason I can think that someone would post someting to stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  170. The utter stupidity of this post is something to behold.

    How did I 'conveniently' omit the games which Poulsen missed?  
     
    The analysis is about Poulsen's IMPACT ON THE TEAM WHEN HE PLAYS.  Obvioiusly, when he doesn't play he is not having an impact on the team. 

    Since when do you include games in which a player *didn't* play when analysing results when they *did* play.

    *shoots self. again*

    ReplyDelete
  171. for your information those lines i have lifted from what Roy hodgson and John Aldrige have said in their recent interviews although they are not verbatim. So you consider John Aldridge and Roy Hodson as naive as me ! It is a pity that you had nothing to argue on what I have claimed and hence decided to take an attack and claim my last lines were blatant and false. My advice to you is to learn to accept the views of your critics before you become a critic yourself.("Critical Realism of LFC!!"). I have a nice laugh when i read your replies. but i appreciate your vocabulary. It is excellent. Cause without it you wont be able to argue one bit. 

    ReplyDelete
  172. for your information those lines i have lifted from what Roy hodgson and John Aldrige have said in their recent interviews although they are not verbatim. So you consider John Aldridge and Roy Hodson as naive as me ! It is a pity that you had nothing to argue on what I have claimed and hence decided to take an attack and claim my last lines were blatant and false. My advice to you is to learn to accept the views of your critics before you become a critic yourself.("Critical Realism of LFC!!"). I have a nice laugh when i read your replies. but i appreciate your vocabulary. It is excellent. Cause without it you wont be able to argue one bit. 

    ReplyDelete
  173. You are the most boring blogger out there. I wish you didn't keep popping up in my news feeds. You sound like Houlier with your winning percentages etc when all anyone needs to do to know Poulsen is pony is use their eyes. He's slow, a poor tackler, positionally inept due to lack of pace and a poor passer for anything more difficult than a five yard sideways effort. Try going to some matches.

    ReplyDelete
  174. You are the most boring blogger out there. I wish you didn't keep popping up in my news feeds. You sound like Houlier with your winning percentages etc when all anyone needs to do to know Poulsen is pony is use their eyes. He's slow, a poor tackler, positionally inept due to lack of pace and a poor passer for anything more difficult than a five yard sideways effort. Try going to some matches.

    ReplyDelete
  175. You are the most boring blogger out there. I wish you didn't keep popping up in my news feeds. You sound like Houlier with your winning percentages etc when all anyone needs to do to know Poulsen is pony is use their eyes. He's slow, a poor tackler, positionally inept due to lack of pace and a poor passer for anything more difficult than a five yard sideways effort. Try going to some matches.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Do I think that Poulson, Konchesky and Lucas are fundamentally bad players... no of course not.

    Do I think that Poulson, Konchesky and Lucas (amongst others) are Liverpool Players... not a chance in hell.

    These are not bad players in there own right they would be good signings for the likes of Birmingham, Fulham, Everton etc etc but the problem for me is that they are not good enough for Liverpool FC and we should be aiming a lot higher.

    I was frustrated with the signings of Poulson and Konchesky because I feel that we should be aiming higher.

    I am especially frustrated with Poulson, not because he is a bad player, or because he is 30+ in age, but are we really saying that we do not have any youngster at the club who are not at the same level?

    I would of saved the transfer fee + signing on fee + wages on buying Poulson and promote and play somebody like Spearing who in my opinion is as good as Poulson and will benefit greatly from playing more football.

    Yes we needed a left back because I have never rated Insua, he makes far too many mistakes and as much as I like Aurelio he is injury prone, but honestly, was Konchesky the best we could do?

    Again, no disrespect to Konchesky but he is not the calibre of player we should be going for.

    We might of well saved the transfer fee + signing on fee + wages and kept Insua at the club as with the way Konchesky is playing, there is no difference. 

    ReplyDelete
  177. You are the most boring blogger out there. I wish you didn't keep popping up in my news feeds. You sound like Houlier with your winning percentages etc when all anyone needs to do to know Poulsen is pony is use their eyes. He's slow, a poor tackler, positionally inept due to lack of pace and a poor passer for anything more difficult than a five yard sideways effort. Try going to some matches.

    ReplyDelete
  178. You are the most boring blogger out there. I wish you didn't keep popping up in my news feeds. You sound like Houlier with your winning percentages etc when all anyone needs to do to know Poulsen is pony is use their eyes. He's slow, a poor tackler, positionally inept due to lack of pace and a poor passer for anything more difficult than a five yard sideways effort. Try going to some matches.

    ReplyDelete
  179. You are the most boring blogger out there. I wish you didn't keep popping up in my news feeds. You sound like Houlier with your winning percentages etc when all anyone needs to do to know Poulsen is pony is use their eyes. He's slow, a poor tackler, positionally inept due to lack of pace and a poor passer for anything more difficult than a five yard sideways effort. Try going to some matches.

    ReplyDelete
  180. I have noticed that unless a comment goes along your views, they are deemed as false view.<span>I'm not wasting  my time debating with someone who has such a false view of reality.</span>
    <span><span>
    Now I am not wasting my time debating with someone who claims to be a pundit of footballing matters and claims to have the right view of reality in all his articles. </span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  181. I think since your comparison is between the games he played and the games he missed then i would say its a pretty relevent omission! 

    ReplyDelete
  182. Vas - I agree with you.  I would not have signed Poulsen and Konchesky; however, that does not mean that once they're here they should be mercilessly slagged off in complete ignorance of the reality.

    We should be aiming higher but that doesn't change the fact that the team has done better this season with Poulsen in the team than out of it.

    No amount of hand-wriging over the reasons for his signing will change that.

    He does not deserve the bulk of the criticism thrown his way.

    ReplyDelete
  183. That just displays your stupidity even more; all the game syou mentioned ARE included in the 'WITHOUT POULSEN' section.

    ReplyDelete
  184. I'm trying to remember a time when you published an article which agreed with the majority of Liverpool fans.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think the majority are always right... far from it, but they're certainly not wrong 100% of the time.

    This comment doesn't relate to the above article.  It's more of a general observation.

    ReplyDelete
  185. That just displays your breathtaking lack of comprehension even more; all the games you mentioned ARE included in the 'WITHOUT POULSEN' section.

    ReplyDelete
  186. hahaha.....how come you didnt reply to JH???

    Because he completely sussed you out...missing out the important games in your pathetic "Analysis"...you really are a joke!

    ReplyDelete
  187. I sincerely doubt Hodgson or Aldridge made such naive statements.  If so, post the links.

    There's no point discussing issues with someone who thinks the way you do about fans. It just shows that you don't see things in a realistic manner.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Simple Question? Do you list the games in which he didn't play?

    ReplyDelete
  189. Hi Jeff - I would disagree; in my view experience, the majority of Liverpool fans are wrong most of the time, and that's because the majority is not interested in facts, truth and fair reasoned debate; they care only about subjective opinion, jumping on bandwagons, and following the crowd.

    Just like life.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Yep, agree with all this.  Poulsen is the rock on which the world is built.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Hi Jeff - I would disagree; in my view experience, the majority of Liverpool fans are wrong most of the time, and that's because the majority is not interested in facts, truth and fair reasoned debate; it cares only about subjective opinion, jumping on bandwagons, and following the crowd.  
     
    Just like life in general.


    I can think of nothing worse than being thought of as part of any kind of 'majority'.

    In history, it is the minority that changes the world, not the majority.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Hi Jeff - I would disagree; in my view experience, the majority of Liverpool fans are wrong most of the time, and that's because the majority is not interested in facts, truth and fair reasoned debate; it cares only about subjective opinion, jumping on bandwagons, and following the crowd.    
       
    Just like life in general.  
     
    I can think of nothing worse than being thought of as part of any kind of 'majority'.  
     
    In history, it is the minority that changes the world, not the majority.

    The minority fought the accepted view that the world was flat; the minority endlessly argued that space flight was possible; the minority dared to fight for the right for women to vote; the minority fought against slavery and finally pushed through its abolition.

    Majority view is dangerous, and generally worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  193. No.  Listing the games is not relevant.  The results of those cames have been captured in the table.  You are focusing on something that is totall and utterly pointless. 

    Do you actually have any valid points to make?

    ReplyDelete
  194. Liverpool are unbeaten in 86% of games with poulson playing, i wounder what are win% is we dont want to be playing for the draw , we want to win, so therefore every1 knows poulson aint up to the mark , he may do a job but we have better options

    ReplyDelete
  195. The one big omission here is Quality!
    1. The quality of the teams he didn't face in comparison to those he did.
    2. The quality from Poulsens boots.
    3. The quality of this article and your writing in general!

    ReplyDelete
  196. Poulsen's job is to defend and stop Liverpool losing; he and other defensive players create the foundation; it is then up to the attacking players to create the win. If they're not doing that then it's not Poulsens' fault.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Have you heard the phrase lies, damn lies and statistics. Our results and performances have been poor and yet you use them to argue that he's a good player...huh? You talk about qualifying ourexamples...if I could be ar$ed noting them down then you could show me any game and I will have enough to demonstrate it. Can you give me examples of what he has done that has been so good (not team statistics)...I doubt it. I can't believe you would spend time compiling such a daft statement. Do you really have a grasp of football that extends beyond churning out numbers?

    ReplyDelete
  198. I stopped reading this article after the first paragraph, just after you started to take the high ground on Lucas. As far as I remember you have always stated Lucas is not good enough and he is among Rafas poor buys. It is amazing how you change your mind to fit your agenda!

    ReplyDelete
  199. Oh...and forget the tin pot europa league results - they are not the benchmark upon which we judge the performances of our team and the players.

    ReplyDelete