Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2013

Pedalstool

redzerdrog wrote: »

the previous season we had the best defence in the league I think it is the system rather than the two players mentioned

We conceded 40 goals that season, 43 this season. We scored 24 more goals this season also.

So the system doesn't seem to be any less secure defensively, we just score a lot more goals.

PRAF

redzerdrog wrote: »

the previous season we had the best defence in the league I think it is the system rather than the two players mentioned

2012-13

We conceded 43 last season (Tied 5th best defence but with the 2nd highest number of clean sheets).

2011-12

We conceded 40 goals (Tied 3rd best defence in the EPL).

2010-11

We conceded 44 (Tied 4th best defence).

Pretty consistent I would say. Not quite mean enough for my liking but I wouldn't say there was any significant difference in the defence since Rodgers took over.

PRAF

Pedalstool wrote: »

We conceded 40 goals that season, 43 this season. We scored 24 more goals this season also.

So the system doesn't seem to be any less secure defensively, we just score a lot more goals.

Looks like you beat me to it!

Pedalstool

PRAF wrote: »

Looks like you beat me to it!

Yours was better!

shamrock55

redzerdrog wrote: »

he is certainly better than average defensively i think he is massively under rated and Kelly isnt a patch on him

zabaleta apart I dont think there is a better rb in the league

Dear god have you not seen liverpool the past couple of years johnson is a woefull defender good going forward granted but his actual defensive play is terrible id rather stick a traffic cone at right back

MD1990

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jun/14/liverpool-optimistic-ukrainian-henrikh-mkhitaryan?CMP=twt_gu

Liverpool optimistic about signing Henrikh Mkhitaryan

• Midfielder who scored 25 goals last season is valued at £22m
• Uncertainty remains over Andy Carroll and Luis Suárez






Liverpool are increasingly optimistic about signing Shakhtar Donetsk's £22m-rated midfielder Henrikh Mkhitaryan while uncertainty continues over the futures of Luis Suárez and Andy Carroll.
Brendan Rodgers has made the Armenian international a prime target as he seeks to inject "an extra 20 goals" into his team next season, having already agreed a £7.6m deal for the Celta Vigo striker Iago Aspas.
Shakhtar's chief executive, Sergey Palkin, said last weekend that there had been no official contact with Liverpool about Mkhitaryan, 24, who scored a record 25 goals in the Ukrainian premier league last season, but an approach is believed to have been made and Anfield officials are hopeful about concluding the signing.
Carroll's reluctance to accept a £15m move to West Ham has had an impact on Liverpool's immediate transfer plans while Suárez has not handed in a transfer request despite his frequent claims of discontent with life in England. But Liverpool are nevertheless proceeding with the pursuit of the coveted Mkhitaryan.

PRAF

shamrock55 wrote: »

Dear god have you not seen liverpool the past couple of years johnson is a woefull defender good going forward granted but his actual defensive play is terrible id rather stick a traffic cone at right back

Possibly controversial here but I think Arbeloa is the more effective fullback. A better defender certainly. Not as skilled and not as good going forward but is Johnson that much of an upgrade on him?

A wasteful purchase by Benitez IMO.

daithijjj

In terms of minutes on the pitch in the league, we had Suarez and Gerrard available for the equivalent of 27 more league games this season to the one before. That's a hell of a lot of league games so the extra potency up front and few extra points can be factored in there easily imo.

redzerdrog

shamrock55 wrote: »

Dear god have you not seen liverpool the past couple of years johnson is a woefull defender good going forward granted but his actual defensive play is terrible id rather stick a traffic cone at right back

jesus wept

klose

daithijjj wrote: »

In terms of minutes on the pitch in the league, we had Suarez and Gerrard available for the equivalent of 27 more league games this season to the one before. That's a hell of a lot of league games so the extra potency up front and few extra points can be factored in there easily imo.

Agger too, although he was suspect for a few goals this year. Really have to hand it to the new medical crowd/training programmes laid down regards gerrard/johnson and agger

~Rebel~

PRAF wrote: »

Possibly controversial here but I think Arbeloa is the more effective fullback. A better defender certainly. Not as skilled and not as good going forward but is Johnson that much of an upgrade on him?

A wasteful purchase by Benitez IMO.

You're talking about it as if it was a decision to sell Arbeloa. He had one year left on his contract and actively said he wanted to go back to Madrid. I think Johnson was about as good a replacement as was available, and comparable in quality as a player to Arbeloa (which is a pretty high standard considering Arbeloa is a Spanish international.)

Also think it was one of Rafa's better deals when all the factors are taken into account. He came in as a high value asset in theory (which is great for the books), but in practice cost very little since we wrote off the debt with Pompy - and before anyone says we could have just gotten the money from Pompy instead, we couldn't. Even now, years later, they've still paid back less than 10% of what they owed clubs after going into administration by all accounts. They simply had no money, so writing off the debt in exchange for one of the best right backs in the league was a pretty good deal, considering the alternative was complete loss.

K-9

daithijjj wrote: »

In terms of minutes on the pitch in the league, we had Suarez and Gerrard available for the equivalent of 27 more league games this season to the one before. That's a hell of a lot of league games so the extra potency up front and few extra points can be factored in there easily imo.

We'd no Sturridge or Coutinho for over half this season, plus Borini was injured a lot, and we were far too reliant on him at the start. Carroll wasn't with us either, and Kuyt, Maxi and Bellamy went, 20 goals a season between those last 3 easy!

Gerrard wasn't that great for the first few months of the season either.

PRAF

daithijjj wrote: »

In terms of minutes on the pitch in the league, we had Suarez and Gerrard available for the equivalent of 27 more league games this season to the one before. That's a hell of a lot of league games so the extra potency up front and few extra points can be factored in there easily imo.

Uh oh, this sounds like the start of the same debate we had on here two weeks ago. :eek:

daithijjj

klose wrote: »

Agger too, although he was suspect for a few goals this year. Really have to hand it to the new medical crowd/training programmes laid down regards gerrard/johnson and agger

We had a good run this past season with those players being available but similarly, it wont be their (med staff) fault if the 'niggles' return. And its not the staffs fault they were injured so much in 11/12 either, picking up injuries while on international duty. I seem to remember one of the med staff losing it on twitter when they got injured.

gafferino

Iago Aspas does not want to be viewed as a replacement for Luis Suarez at Liverpool ahead of his expected arrival at Anfield.

The Celta Viga striker is set to complete a £7million move to the Premier League next week after a deal was agreed in principle.

It has been suggested Aspas will have to fill part of the void left by Liverpool superstar Suarez, who wants to quit the club after becoming unhappy in England.

"I want to play in the Premier League. And I hope I will be helped to settle there by all the Spanish speakers at the club, including Luis Suarez"
Iago Aspas
But Aspas is quoted as saying in the Daily Mirror: "Liverpool are one of the biggest clubs in the world and I am going there to take an important step in my career, not to be a replacement for anyone.

"I think it is time for me to take the next step in my career and Liverpool can help me do that. I have confidence in my ability to move forward and to grow as a player.

"I described the move as emotional for me because it is such a big club and it means I've reached another level.

"But I am calm because I feel I am ready. I want to show that I am capable of playing at the level of this huge club.

"I am excited to be going to England. I want to play in the Premier League. And I hope I will be helped to settle there by all the Spanish speakers at the club, including Luis Suarez."

Kerrigooney

PRAF wrote: »

Uh oh, this sounds like the start of the same debate we had on here two weeks ago. :eek:

It wouldn't be like us to start repeating ourselves now would it?

daithijjj

K-9 wrote: »

We'd no Sturridge or Coutinho for over half this season, plus Borini was injured a lot, and we were far too reliant on him at the start. Carroll wasn't with us either, and Kuyt, Maxi and Bellamy went, 20 goals a season between those last 3 easy!

Gerrard wasn't that great for the first few months of the season either.

Everything you say there was ultimately self inflicted bar Borini's injury. Was up to us to buy/sell/replace. Anyway, lets not talk about last summer.

Nobody was that great start of the season bar maybe Sterling who was just a fresh and eager new face. Gerrards form isnt really the point, he was available, and thank fk coz we probly would have seen lots more of Shelvey.

amiable

Raif Severance wrote: »

I don't understand?

Why would Amiable interview Kess over at Twitter, when he can just PM him right here? :pac:

I'm taking a break from my ITK status

djPSB

Anyone wrote: »

Wasn't there stats showing Downing had created the most chances of any Liverpool player in the last 2 seasons?
Edit: Not assists, because 2 years ago our strikers couldnt score for shíte.

He did create some chances that were messed up by the strikers.

But the bottom line is that that Stewart Downing hasn't done enough over the last two seasons to show that he's good enough to make a team that aspires to CL football.

Grand as a back up player, but an expensive one.

daithijjj

PRAF wrote: »

Uh oh, this sounds like the start of the same debate we had on here two weeks ago. :eek:

When people routinely bring up that we scored more goals i feel its my 'duty' to say what i see as to why i believe this may have happened. Its a fair point to bring up when your two best players missed that amount of football. People could always just not bring up our goals scored i suppose :cool:

djPSB

daithijjj wrote: »

When people routinely bring up that we scored more goals i feel its my 'duty' to say what i see as to why i believe this may have happened. Its a fair point to bring up when your two best players missed that amount of football. People could always just not bring up our goals scored i suppose :cool:

Suarez was much improved last season. This doesn't just happen by chance. Rodgers bought players that link well with Suarez. Before that, he was trying to link up with Adam, Downing, Carroll, Spearing etc. The management team deserve credit for his improved performances.

Gerrard's injury free season didn't just happen by chance either. Sports science team deserve alot of credit for both his and Agger's improved fitness records.

PRAF

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Also think it was one of Rafa's better deals when all the factors are taken into account. He came in as a high value asset in theory (which is great for the books), but in practice cost very little since we wrote off the debt with Pompy - and before anyone says we could have just gotten the money from Pompy instead, we couldn't. Even now, years later, they've still paid back less than 10% of what they owed clubs after going into administration by all accounts. They simply had no money, so writing off the debt in exchange for one of the best right backs in the league was a pretty good deal, considering the alternative was complete loss.

According to wiki (if I'm reading it correctly) the price was the debt remaining on Crouch (£7m) plus another £10m. Perhaps there were some doubts about getting the full £7m left on Crouch at the time, but I don't think it was considered a bad debt at that point. Anyway, lets say he just cost £10m. That'd be a fair price for an excellent footballer but I wouldn't say it was a steal. Each of the last 4 PFA right backs of the year cost less than that (Zabaletta, Walker, Sagna, and Ivanovic). It definitely wasn't one of Rafa's better signings IMO. I'd put Torres, Alonso, Masch, and Reina miles ahead of that deal.

~Rebel~

PRAF wrote: »

According to wiki (if I'm reading it correctly) the price was the debt remaining on Crouch (£7m) plus another £10m. Perhaps there were some doubts about getting the full £7m left on Crouch at the time, but I don't think it was considered a bad debt at that point. Anyway, lets say he just cost £10m. That'd be a fair price for an excellent footballer but I wouldn't say it was a steal. Each of the last 4 PFA right backs of the year cost less than that (Zabaletta, Walker, Sagna, and Ivanovic). It definitely wasn't one of Rafa's better signings IMO. I'd put Torres, Alonso, Masch, and Reina miles ahead of that deal.

I'd definitely put those deals ahead of it too. Rafa signed a hell of a lot of players though, and he's definitely in the top 10% imo.

As for his price at 10m, the guys you mention were bought and then achieved right back of the year status, whereas we bought Johnson directly after he got that status, so it makes sense that would come at a cost.

As for their financial status, we bought less than a year before they went into administration - that's about as serious as debt comes. Less than 6 months after we got Johnson, they couldn't pay the players wages anymore, and couldn't exist as a going concern. I'd be very confident they knew this was on the cards when they sold Johnson (hence the exodus of players at the time to try to get wages down and bring in money). It was at that point that the administrators sought deals to pay back 10p on the pound with their debt. Of course as we know, even that didn't help and they got even closer to folding, but at that point things were certainly very very bad.

I didn't think we had even received 4 of the 11 million they owed us before we bought Johnson (had it more in mind that we got 2 and were still owed 9), but I can't find figures either way.

daithijjj

djPSB wrote: »

Suarez was much improved last season. This doesn't just happen by chance. Rodgers bought players that link well with Suarez. Before that, he was trying to link up with Adam, Downing, Carroll, Spearing etc. The management team deserve credit for his improved performances.

Gerrard's injury free season didn't just happen by chance either. Sports science team deserve alot of credit for both his and Agger's improved fitness records.

Suarez might have been better the season before if he wasnt getting himself 8 game bans in the middle of the season. Its true we bought well in January, we bought badly in the summer. For what its worth, Downing played similar minutes this year to the previous year. Adam wasnt that good and Allen hasnt improved us that much if at all tbh from what Adam gave us apart from aesthetics, which is in the eye of the beholder tbh. Spearing is a bit of a disingenuous inclusion because he was back up who only covered injuries really.

Like said previously, it wont be the med staff fault if we pick up injuries next year, it will be 95% luck if those players have that amount of availability. I certainly wont be in here complaining about them if we have setbacks with injuries, will you if that happens?.

klose

PRAF wrote: »

According to wiki (if I'm reading it correctly) the price was the debt remaining on Crouch (£7m) plus another £10m. Perhaps there were some doubts about getting the full £7m left on Crouch at the time, but I don't think it was considered a bad debt at that point. Anyway, lets say he just cost £10m. That'd be a fair price for an excellent footballer but I wouldn't say it was a steal. Each of the last 4 PFA right backs of the year cost less than that (Zabaletta, Walker, Sagna, and Ivanovic). It definitely wasn't one of Rafa's better signings IMO. I'd put Torres, Alonso, Masch, and Reina miles ahead of that deal.

Obviously yeah but johnson is definitely up there with the best of rafas signings. For the british players weve bought weve certainly gotten the most bang for our buck out of johnson.

Hidalgo

redzerdrog wrote: »

the previous season we had the best defence in the league I think it is the system rather than the two players mentioned

From open play the system could be blamed, but some of the goals conceded from corners were shocking, defenders losing the man they're tracking, getting spun so easily by attackers etc

djPSB

daithijjj wrote: »

Suarez might have been better the season before if he wasnt getting himself 8 game bans in the middle of the season. Its true we bought well in January, we bought badly in the summer. For what its worth, Downing played similar minutes this year to the previous year. Adam wasnt that good and Allen hasnt improved us that much if at all tbh from what Adam gave us apart from aesthetics, which is in the eye of the beholder tbh. Spearing is a bit of a disingenuous inclusion because he was back up who only covered injuries really.

Like said previously, it wont be the med staff fault if we pick up injuries next year, it will be 95% luck if those players have that amount of availability. I certainly wont be in here complaining about them if we have setbacks with injuries, will you if that happens?.

No doubt there is some luck involved but it's not 100% luck. Sports science teams have a major role to play in the modern game. Gerrard's role in the team was also refined. Last season he played a role which involved him acting as a playmaker from deep. He wasn't asked to play box to box like he did in previous seasons. This has an impact on how likely he is to pick up an injury as well.

Read this.

Brendan Rodgers has outlined the behind-the-scenes work being carried out at Liverpool which has helped Steven Gerrard and his teammates maximize their minutes on the field this season. Gerrard has played every single minute of the Reds’ Barclays Premier League campaign so far, closely followed in the appearance list by Daniel Agger, Glen Johnson and Luis Suarez.

At his pre-Southampton news conference on Thursday, the manager explained how a personal plan was created for each player at the beginning of the campaign and has reaped rewards ever since.

“Some of our players, the likes of Steven Gerrard, have played the most amount of consecutive games they ever have,” Rodgers said. ”His performance level, alongside a lot of the others, has been outstanding this year. It gives me great hope and hopefully it continues. We’ve looked at every player, not just Steven. When I came in here it was about getting a commitment. It wasn’t about motivation from the players, it was about commitment to the cause and what we’re trying to do. What we promised the players was that once they committed, there would be a plan in place for each individual in order for him to play at his maximum. Steven has benefited from that.

“We revamped our medical and sports science team — our head of performance, Glen Driscoll, is in tune with how I work on the field, which allows him to develop the plan along with our team off the field. It’s a case of not throwing a blanket around every player and seeing them as the same — they are very much a team but you have to look at the individual. “For Steven, it’s about the right moments of recovery and rest. The biggest thing is him — he wants to learn, improve and be better. He has trust in how we work and that’s critical.”

If you think that it's 100% down to luck then so be it. We will have to agree to disagree. It's not that simple IMO.

redzerdrog

Hidalgo wrote: »

From open play the system could be blamed, but some of the goals conceded from corners were shocking, defenders losing the man they're tracking, getting spun so easily by attackers etc

can that not be blamed on having a man marking system instead of zonal marking?

Hidalgo

redzerdrog wrote: »

can that not be blamed on having a man marking system instead of zonal marking?

For sure, I know there was zonal marking under Rafa
Bit can't remember what system was employed under Kenny.

Either way, whatever was used last season was a disaster waiting to happen time and time again.

daithijjj

djPSB wrote: »

No doubt there is some luck involved but it's not 100% luck. Sports science teams have a major role to play in the modern game. Gerrard's role in the team was also refined. Last season he played a role which involved him acting as a playmaker from deep. He wasn't asked to play box to box like he did in previous seasons. This has an impact on how likely he is to pick up an injury as well.

Read this.

Brendan Rodgers has outlined the behind-the-scenes work being carried out at Liverpool which has helped Steven Gerrard and his teammates maximize their minutes on the field this season. Gerrard has played every single minute of the Reds’ Barclays Premier League campaign so far, closely followed in the appearance list by Daniel Agger, Glen Johnson and Luis Suarez.

At his pre-Southampton news conference on Thursday, the manager explained how a personal plan was created for each player at the beginning of the campaign and has reaped rewards ever since.

“Some of our players, the likes of Steven Gerrard, have played the most amount of consecutive games they ever have,” Rodgers said. ”His performance level, alongside a lot of the others, has been outstanding this year. It gives me great hope and hopefully it continues. We’ve looked at every player, not just Steven. When I came in here it was about getting a commitment. It wasn’t about motivation from the players, it was about commitment to the cause and what we’re trying to do. What we promised the players was that once they committed, there would be a plan in place for each individual in order for him to play at his maximum. Steven has benefited from that.

“We revamped our medical and sports science team — our head of performance, Glen Driscoll, is in tune with how I work on the field, which allows him to develop the plan along with our team off the field. It’s a case of not throwing a blanket around every player and seeing them as the same — they are very much a team but you have to look at the individual. “For Steven, it’s about the right moments of recovery and rest. The biggest thing is him — he wants to learn, improve and be better. He has trust in how we work and that’s critical.”

If you think that it's 100% down to luck then so be it. We will have to agree to disagree. It's not that simple IMO.

I didnt say it was 100%. What is 100% certain is football players picking up injuries. I never said the treatments to players wasnt important either. Peter Brukner had a great reputation and still does.

K-9

daithijjj wrote: »

Everything you say there was ultimately self inflicted bar Borini's injury. Was up to us to buy/sell/replace. Anyway, lets not talk about last summer.

Nobody was that great start of the season bar maybe Sterling who was just a fresh and eager new face. Gerrards form isnt really the point, he was available, and thank fk coz we probly would have seen lots more of Shelvey.

You don't want to talk about last Summers window, but you do want to talk about the repercussions of last Summer.

Hmmmmm, Okay, think I'll pass on that schizophrenic conversation!

daithijjj

K-9 wrote: »

You don't want to talk about last Summers window, but you do want to talk about the repercussions of last Summer.

Hmmmmm, Okay, think I'll pass on that schizophrenic conversation!

The only point i made was about Gerrard and Suarez availability. It was yourself who went tangental talking about summer ins and outs, by all means carry on having that conversation with others, its not something i brought up.

Hannibal

PRAF wrote: »

According to wiki (if I'm reading it correctly) the price was the debt remaining on Crouch (£7m) plus another £10m. Perhaps there were some doubts about getting the full £7m left on Crouch at the time, but I don't think it was considered a bad debt at that point. Anyway, lets say he just cost £10m. That'd be a fair price for an excellent footballer but I wouldn't say it was a steal. Each of the last 4 PFA right backs of the year cost less than that (Zabaletta, Walker, Sagna, and Ivanovic). It definitely wasn't one of Rafa's better signings IMO. I'd put Torres, Alonso, Masch, and Reina miles ahead of that deal.

Pompey also owed us £1m for the loan of Pennant so it was really £9m for Johnson.
I'd consider Johnson much better than Walker or Sagna, I can't get the hype about Walker he's always out of position defensively and particularly aagainst us he always seems to challenge people by grabbing them around the neck and shoulders.
I'd also lump Agger in with Rafa's best signings and in terms of value for money Arbeloa, Lucas, Skrtel, Garcia and Kuyt.

5starpool

Agger's injuries last season (i.e. 11/12) were mostly broken rib injuries iirc. That can hardly be put down to better player management as they were sustained in games. I think he did his ribs twice that season. I agree with Dathijj's posts on that.

NukaCola

daithijjj wrote: »

In terms of minutes on the pitch in the league, we had Suarez and Gerrard available for the equivalent of 27 more league games this season to the one before. That's a hell of a lot of league games so the extra potency up front and few extra points can be factored in there easily imo.

Suarez played 31 league games last year to this years 33.
Gerrard played 18 vs 35 this year in the EPL....Thats 19 league games, or am i missing something?

Gerrard played deeper this year than previous seasons, adding 4 goals to last years tally despite playing 17 more games.

Suarez was excellent but more credit needs to be given to BR for playing to Suarez strength TBH.

joe123

Havent been reading much of this thread lately but it still seems full of "Rodgers is good because.." + "Rodgers is bad because..."

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

NukaCola

joe123 wrote: »

Havent been reading much of this thread lately but it still seems full of "Rodgers is good because.." + "Rodgers is bad because..."

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

People complaining sporadically about the topic being discussed zzzzzzzzzzzz

Fans discussing manager in football thread shocker!!

Feel free to change the topic joe.......

daithijjj

NukaCola wrote: »

Suarez played 31 league games last year to this years 33.
Gerrard played 18 vs 35 this year in the EPL....Thats 19 league games, or am i missing something?

Gerrard played deeper this year than previous seasons, adding 4 goals to last years tally despite playing 17 more games.

Suarez was excellent but more credit needs to be given to BR for playing to Suarez strength TBH.

In 11/12 Gerrard spent 2003 mins less on the pitch. Suarez spent 409 mins less on the pitch. 2412 mins between them = 26.8 games. After doing the proper calculations it seems i exaggerated it by .2 of a game or 18 mins.

The point that was raised was a simple one, ie, our two best players played an extra 26.8 games under Rodgers last season.

billy2012

daithijjj wrote: »

In 11/12 Gerrard spent 2003 mins less on the pitch. Suarez spent 409 mins less on the pitch. 2412 mins between them = 26.8 games. After doing the proper calculations it seems i exaggerated it by .2 of a game or 18 mins.

The point that was raised was a simple one, ie, our two best players played an extra 26.8 games under Rodgers last season.

I blame Roy!!:D

LiamoSail

daithijjj wrote: »

In 11/12 Gerrard spent 2003 mins less on the pitch. Suarez spent 409 mins less on the pitch. 2412 mins between them = 26.8 games. After doing the proper calculations it seems i exaggerated it by .2 of a game or 18 mins.

The point that was raised was a simple one, ie, our two best players played an extra 26.8 games under Rodgers last season.

With the £100m+ kenny had to spend, he should have been able to deal with the loss of Gerrard.

He also had his £35m striker, which should have alleviated the burden of having Suarez available for 4 less games

Kess73

NukaCola wrote: »

Suarez played 31 league games last year to this years 33.
Gerrard played 18 vs 35 this year in the EPL....Thats 19 league games, or am i missing something?

Gerrard played deeper this year than previous seasons, adding 4 goals to last years tally despite playing 17 more games.

Suarez was excellent but more credit needs to be given to BR for playing to Suarez strength TBH.

He is using minutes played rather than games played.

Suarez played 31 league games the season before last, but whilst that is 2 games less than the 33 league games he played in last season, the difference in playing time is greater than 180 minutes as Kenny subbed Suarez off a lot in the league and did not give Suarez as many full games when fit as Ridgers did.

So Suarez played in only two games less, but in terms of minutes played the difference comes to more than two game's worth.


Same logic was applied to working out Gerrard's game time.


To be fair the Suarez minutes is totally down to how each manager used him as the difference in the number of league games he was played in is small. Kenny chose to sub him off a lot whereas Rodgers chose to let him play the full 90 minutes more often.

So lastseason Suarez played approx 2953 minutes in the league (excluding injury time) and the season before he played 2549 mins (again excluding injury time), so there is a difference in playing time of 404 minutes (again without injury time being added) rather than the 180 mins the games played stat would suggest.


The minutes played stat is as useful as any other stat and is just as worthless as any other stat as well. For example it can be used to show that a better season in front of goal was in part influenced by players getting more minutes, and it is an arguement that would indeed hold water.

But when the minutes played in the league is looked at in a little more detail, and using only the two players used as one of the main reasons for more goals, then another stats pops up and that is goals per minute. The goals per minutes of Suarez in the league last season came in at approx 1 goal for every 128 mins played and in the season before that it was 1 goal for every 231 mins played. Now the goals per minutes figure usually goes down when a player plays more minutes, so it could be argued that something else was a factor other than minutes played as the stats of Suarez bucked the trend totally.

Gerrard on the other hand played far more minutes in the league last season than he did the season before, but his goals to games figures for the league did not get a big improvement like those of Suarez, in fact his goals per minutes got worse when compared to the season before, something which then contradicts the arguement that more minutes played explains the goal increase if one is simply to focus on the minutes played side of things.

If we then take the minutes played arguement as originally put forward but apply it to a few other players, then it gets skewed further as players like Henderson and Downing had far more league minutes the season before last than they did last season, but both scored more league goals last season.


In short the minutes played stat is an interesting one, and a useful tool if applied across the board when evaluating a team's performance as a unit, but it is only window dressing when it is used to explain the performance of an entire team through using the stats of only two players as the sample used will leave out too many variables.

Also it is flawed as it can in no way, when used on a small sample of players, gauge how many of the goals were points winning goals (for example the only goal in a 1 nil win or the secon goal in a 2-1 win etc).

Goals per minutes played is a good way to see how efficient/regular a player is in front of goal (but not definitive of course), but it becomes a complimentary rather than a defining stat when comparing in any way a team's goal output over two seasons using only two players as the sample.

MD1990

Suarez wasn't subbed off much this year much because when he was he looked like he gonna attack Rodgers lol

Kess73

MD1990 wrote: »

Suarez wasn't subbed off much this year much because when he was he looked like he gonna attack Rodgers lol

Not a case in my eyes of one manager being right or wrong with regards to subbing or not subbing the player, but it does show that the much of the difference in playing minutes in the league with regards to Suarez was a result of the managers Suarez had more than any other factor including the bans.

Also the 400+ minutes of a difference in the playing time of Suarez between the two seasons does not even come close to explaining why more minutes played saw more than 100 minutes being shaved off how long it took for the player to score each of his goals. In terms of minutes per goals Suarez scored an extra 12 league goals last season over what he managed the season before, but somehow managed to shave 1236 minutes off of the time he would have needed to score that many extra during the 2011/12 season.

Just goes to show that as useful as minutes played stats are, they are a very fluid stat and as such as very much open to various interpretations and uses.

LuckyLloyd

ben.schlomo wrote: »

You mean you were the Mr Alan and Lloyd of 2010?? Hope for them yet then.:D

I was spitting fire about Hodgson way before the rest of the thread on here caught on. I was ridiculed during August and September 2010 for it too by the way.

billy2012

MD1990 wrote: »

Suarez wasn't subbed off much this year much because when he was he looked like he gonna attack Rodgers lol

We also had no other strikers for half the season. He always does well under pressure. Think he will have a good go at the cup with Uruguay.

klose

The mignolet news is picking up a bit of pace, good to see imo.

daithijjj

Kess73 wrote: »

He is using minutes played rather than games played.

Suarez played 31 league games the season before last, but whilst that is 2 games less than the 33 league games he played in last season, the difference in playing time is greater than 180 minutes as Kenny subbed Suarez off a lot in the league and did not give Suarez as many full games when fit as Ridgers did.

So Suarez played in only two games less, but in terms of minutes played the difference comes to more than two game's worth.


Same logic was applied to working out Gerrard's game time.


To be fair the Suarez minutes is totally down to how each manager used him as the difference in the number of league games he was played in is small. Kenny chose to sub him off a lot whereas Rodgers chose to let him play the full 90 minutes more often.

So lastseason Suarez played approx 2953 minutes in the league (excluding injury time) and the season before he played 2549 mins (again excluding injury time), so there is a difference in playing time of 404 minutes (again without injury time being added) rather than the 180 mins the games played stat would suggest.


The minutes played stat is as useful as any other stat and is just as worthless as any other stat as well. For example it can be used to show that a better season in front of goal was in part influenced by players getting more minutes, and it is an arguement that would indeed hold water.

But when the minutes played in the league is looked at in a little more detail, and using only the two players used as one of the main reasons for more goals, then another stats pops up and that is goals per minute. The goals per minutes of Suarez in the league last season came in at approx 1 goal for every 128 mins played and in the season before that it was 1 goal for every 231 mins played. Now the goals per minutes figure usually goes down when a player plays more minutes, so it could be argued that something else was a factor other than minutes played as the stats of Suarez bucked the trend totally.

Gerrard on the other hand played far more minutes in the league last season than he did the season before, but his goals to games figures for the league did not get a big improvement like those of Suarez, in fact his goals per minutes got worse when compared to the season before, something which then contradicts the arguement that more minutes played explains the goal increase if one is simply to focus on the minutes played side of things.

If we then take the minutes played arguement as originally put forward but apply it to a few other players, then it gets skewed further as players like Henderson and Downing had far more league minutes the season before last than they did last season, but both scored more league goals last season.


In short the minutes played stat is an interesting one, and a useful tool if applied across the board when evaluating a team's performance as a unit, but it is only window dressing when it is used to explain the performance of an entire team through using the stats of only two players as the sample used will leave out too many variables.

Also it is flawed as it can in no way, when used on a small sample of players, gauge how many of the goals were points winning goals (for example the only goal in a 1 nil win or the secon goal in a 2-1 win etc).

Goals per minutes played is a good way to see how efficient/regular a player is in front of goal (but not definitive of course), but it becomes a complimentary rather than a defining stat when comparing in any way a team's goal output over two seasons using only two players as the sample.

All of that is fair enough. I just see football in a more simple format.

I never made the suggestion that Gerrard and Suarez were the scorers or assist makers of so many extra goals, moreso that our two best players were on the pitch more to influence those outcomes. If its the case that people want to dismiss the notion that those 2 particular players dont influence us in more than the simplistic goals and assists then thats up to them i suppose.

Perhaps Suarez got taken off because Kenny felt we needed him for the bigger cup games which came thick and fast either side of league games from January onwards. Sometimes players do need to be forcibly taken off for the greater good of that players team over the remainder of the season. I think Gerrard would have played some games while injured also, much like Joe Allen this season maybe. I really dont think there is that much of a difference in how either manager handled the individual in that regard. Up to the player to tell the manager if he feels right to play.

Again, in simple form, our two best players missed a big chunk of game time (im not really interested in others because they are not our best players). Its not a dig at anyone, its just an opinion that i believe needs to be accounted into what people deem as 'progress'. Maybe im just a simpleton but for me, missing your 2 best players (or having them available) reflects what was achieved. So, if its ok with y'all, i will hold fire on talk of 'progress' just for now. And one last point, i wont be moaning about the medical staff being useless or Rodgers being useless based on players that are unavailable if that comes to pass next year. Its just football, sh1t happens.

daithijjj

klose wrote: »

The mignolet news is picking up a bit of pace, good to see imo.

For 10m?, i would pass. Lets wait and see what the fee really is.

Anyone

BBC reporting we are close to the deal for Mignolet. Whatever about who we buy and for how much, imo its a good sign we are trying to get our business done early.

klose

daithijjj wrote: »

For 10m?, i would pass. Lets wait and see what the fee really is.

Ive seen figures varying form 6-10 but bbc are running with 10, like you say well have to see.