Jump to content

Andy

Administrator
  • Posts

    13,170
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Andy

    Lewis Hall

    Good cameo, look forward to not seeing him for the remainder of the season
  2. Just as one example, Haaland had the 1v1 where Botman lost him completely from Kovacic's chip, any meaningful contact on the ball and he scores. A couple of headers where they should have done better. Foden blazed one wide where he should have hit the target, albeit good tracking by Bruno. Our defending has been pretty all over the place.
  3. It's been "good" in the same way it would be good when a Steve Bruce side went to City and weren't 5-0 down by half time. Reality is it's been a poor performance again. Disjointed going forward (albeit there have been some glimmers) and defensively all over the place again. It's fortunate to be only two tbh. Both goals were entirely of our own making - unfortunate in the last instance, but completely preventable in the build up. No pressure on the ball until the last minute, way too easy for them to get shots away. Was always going to be a tough fixture but it's the same story every week. Hopefully Howe can change something at half time but it's hard to see it not ending 4 or 5.
  4. We are so open, the defending is actually schoolboy stuff. We've spent the entire season saying "it'll be better when Longstaff is back, it'll be better when Willock is back, it'll be better when Joelinton is back, it'll be better when Botman is back, it'll be better when Pope is back (probably more truth to this one than the others)", but there is an underlying structural issue there, we are not playing as a unit, we look like a bunch of individuals which has been the main difference this season, pretty much all season - especially away from home. We are incoherent going forward and even more incoherent going backwards. We're relying on luck in defence, and "a bit of magic" up front; a dangerous combo. No idea what the solution is but we are a shadow of last season's "team".
  5. It's a weird one with Neto. Whenever I watch him I feel like he could legitimately be one of the best players in europe if he could stay fit. His injury record is probably the only reason we'd have a realistic chance of signing him without being in the CL next year, but it's also obviously something we've been burned badly by this season. I'd still be tempted to take a punt tbh.
  6. I'm not sure it is. If you've got Alan Shearer or Ronaldo up front you can probably win games consistently with less than 2xG. If your forwards are shit, you can probably fail to win games consistently with more than 2xG. I'm not sure if the model has changed in recent years, but it used to be the case that 1xG for Messi would be the same as 1xG for Almiron, this is obviously a big flaw.
  7. Its overuse is my biggest problem with it. In isolation it's a decent stat, like shots, possession etc, but it often becomes a lazy way of analysing a game. It's also generally misused. Particularly hate the phrase "they're over-performing their xG" as if it's a negative trait, when an alternative way of phrasing that would be "they have signed players that are clinical in front of goal" (and the opposite for "underperforming xG"). It's a decent way of identifying how creative a team is, but fails to reflect some of the most important aspects of the game (errors from the opponents, wonder goals, individual quality etc).
  8. I reckon even Luuk De Jong circa 2013 scores it 9 times out of 10.
  9. Andy

    Joe Willock

    It's probably done his confidence the world of good seeing how much the midfield has missed him tbh, was playing today like he believed he was the missing piece
  10. Andy

    Tino Livramento

    Pace combined with elite torso deception. Unstoppable combo.
  11. Andy

    Joe Willock

    Makes a huge difference having someone in midfield who can drive with the ball. Really missed his athleticism.
  12. Andy

    Harvey Barnes

    Eh? He's a premier league winger who's started consistently for Leicester since 2019, he's not an unknown quantity. Everyone knows what kind of player he is.
  13. Andy

    Harvey Barnes

    Do you want to take my words any more out of context? I said if you take away the element of the game that we signed him for - pure end product - he doesn't offer much else and can look poor. My point (which I've clarified for you and you are still completely missing) is that the people who are being critical of him as a player need to understand that when he is off form in front of goal he WILL look like a poor player. We have signed him for that clinical edge in the final third that we were missing at times last season. I don't think it's that hard to grasp tbh, but hit me up if you need me to rephrase it for the 4th time.
  14. Andy

    Harvey Barnes

    One goal doesn't change the fact that in recent weeks he's missed some pretty good chances in general like, including in open play and from the spot yesterday. I'm sure he'd admit himself that he's not on his best form, considering at Leicester he had a reputation for being clinical for a winger. You've either deliberately or inadvertently mistook my comment as criticism for him as a player, when in fact I'm saying his bar for end product is usually extremely high. We bought him for that reason alone. I literally compared him to a wide version of Inzaghi, which is hardly a criticism. His game is almost entirely based around his movement and finishing, so when that is missing and his confidence in front of goal is low, which it certainly looked yesterday, he looks like a poor player as he doesn't offer a great deal else.
  15. Andy

    Harvey Barnes

    If that's in response to my post, is it incorrect? He's a pure output player, he doesn't offer much else. If he's off form, he'll look terrible and receive criticism as we've seen today. If he's on form, he'll win games for you.
×
×
  • Create New...