Sandro Tonali

[Nobody]

1 minute ago, ponsaelius said:

He has looked good for Italy. They've landed onto something now with him, Ricci and Barella when he's back as a three.

 

Hope he can show similar for us.

What position has he been playing for Italy? 

[ponsaelius]

Just now, Nobody said:

What position has he been playing for Italy? 

 

Similar to with us but LCM and in a 3-5-2. Ricci as the deepest midfielder.

[joeyt]

1 hour ago, STM said:

 

Doesn't make any sense because in the last couple of match threads I've heard that he's been anonymous.

 

Nonsense

[STM]

27 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

Nonsense

I know right? I don't why them idiots keep saying it.

[joeyt]

4 minutes ago, STM said:

I know right? I don't why them idiots keep saying it.

 

People thought Tonali was great second half against Man City

[54]

1 minute ago, joeyt said:

 

People thought Tonali was great second half against Man City

I also thought he was good against Everton bar a few misplaced passes when he got fatigued. His movement and quick passing adds so much to our midfield transition.

[joeyt]

To be fair he was anonymous against WImbledon

[54]

2 minutes ago, joeyt said:

To be fair he was anonymous against WImbledon

In fairness not many people escape the pocket of Myles Hippolyte.

[TRon]

20 hours ago, 54 said:

I also thought he was good against Everton bar a few misplaced passes when he got fatigued. His movement and quick passing adds so much to our midfield transition.

 

Feels like the fault lies more in the players around him in regard to the quick passing. If teammates were alive to it, could cause a lot of damage.

[Heron]

I don't think so to be honest. Both he and Trippier were perhaps trying slightly more direct/dangerous passes that they are absolutely capable of but simply didn't come to fruition. It had nowt to do with the players they were passing to and it was simply sloppy by their such high standards.

 

That's what is interesting about player ratings etc. It's arguably a bit of a grey area.

 

For me, player ratings are (somewhat) a combination of how well they played within their capability and how much impact they left on the game. For example Sean Longstaff could play a 10 and be as impactful as Tonali on a 7, simply because Tonali has more "in his locker".

 

What is interesting is Sean Longstaff as an example can play say an 8 (by his standards) and do virtually nothing wrong but because folk know he's not as good as Tonali they will rate him a 4/5 and they'll cite his "safe passing" etc. As a reason why his stats are high. But sometimes keeping things simple and retaining possession is just as important as trying a decisive pass that may or may not work. 

 

Whereas seemingly, Tonali can play something like a 5/6 by his standards and folk will say he was a 7 simply because he tried more difficult or quick passing which frankly lost us the ball, allowing the opposition to counter attack, and because folk know he is (of course) a better player than Longataff.

 

Frustrates me to be honest. Doesn't seem to be a level playing field when critiquing players on a match by match basis and surely you can only do that based on the metrics I've suggested and not on who is usually the better player.

 

This is my interpretation of folks comments following the Everton game as an example.

 

Mind...by my own admission, there is some hypocrisy in my "level playing field" based on individual match-by-match player ratings. As I would more likely rate the Tonali's of the world more harshly simply because on their day they are absolutely unplayable.

 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Heron

[Rod]

2 hours ago, Heron said:

I don't think so to be honest. Both he and Trippier were perhaps trying slightly more direct/dangerous passes that they are absolutely capable of but simply didn't come to fruition. It had nowt to do with the players they were passing to and it was simply sloppy by their such high standards.

 

That's what is interesting about player ratings etc. It's arguably a bit of a grey area.

 

For me, player ratings are (somewhat) a combination of how well they played within their capability and how much impact they left on the game. For example Sean Longstaff could play a 10 and be as impactful as Tonali on a 7, simply because Tonali has more "in his locker".

 

What is interesting is Sean Longstaff as an example can play say an 8 (by his standards) and do virtually nothing wrong but because folk know he's not as good as Tonali they will rate him a 4/5 and they'll cite his "safe passing" etc. As a reason why his stats are high. But sometimes keeping things simple and retaining possession is just as important as trying a decisive pass that may or may not work. 

 

Whereas seemingly, Tonali can play something like a 5/6 by his standards and folk will say he was a 7 simply because he tried more difficult or quick passing which frankly lost us the ball, allowing the opposition to counter attack, and because folk know he is (of course) a better player than Longataff.

 

Frustrates me to be honest. Doesn't seem to be a level playing field when critiquing players on a match by match basis and surely you can only do that based on the metrics I've suggested and not on who is usually the better player.

 

This is my interpretation of folks comments following the Everton game as an example.

 

Mind...by my own admission, there is some hypocrisy in my "level playing field" based on individual match-by-match player ratings. As I would more likely rate the Tonali's of the world more harshly simply because on their day they are absolutely unplayable.

 

 

 

To summarise, Tonali is a great passer of the ball and makes himself available most of the time.  Great players always look like they have loads of time on the ball and he is great at it.