I hate Player Ratings based on data. Because the algorithm can weight things so you gets some ridiculous numbers - usually dribbles and aerial duels won for example. So Benteke can have a game where he wins 12 headers from goal kicks yet not touch the ball in the box and get 7
But ratings based on the opinion of one person are usually absolutely fucking terrible piles of shite with absolutely no value at all.
There are so many human biases at play, literally hundreds, that impair your ability to give a fair assessment of what you are seeing.
If a player gives the ball away just FOUR times in midfield in a top-5 league game, that is impressive.
What almost all these people who underrate players like Gini (and before, Mauro Silva, Deschamps, etc) is that keeping the ball is a whole job. In fact if you have a
playmaking side that needs to dominate the ball and will be vulnerable to counter attacks - giving the ball away becomes a cardinal sin
Someone said recently that some people rate midfielders like Kante - Bruno Fernandes and don't really understand the job of anything in between
and it is fucking spot on.
Garry Gelade called it high-visibility actions. He actually did studies on this too and correlated memorable actions with high ratings for fans. With scouts, not so much. Because scouts understand football - and know that a midfield performance isn't
defined by crunching tackles, holywood balls and thunderbastard shots.
The second problem is everyone seems to only remember (or even see) what happens in relation to the ball.
If you have a high-level tactical player who is constantly moving to give you good structure and shape on and off the ball - tracking runners to turn a dangerous run into a
non-passing option... correcting your positioning with micro-movements to block the passing lanes for passes through your line, jockeying a player to delay an attack rather than trying to win the ball... it is all fairly boring, unnoticeable shit that is very very valuable.
But most people don't see it. They don't even have the understanding of the game to look for the things they aren't seeing. Which... again... is why Garry found fans only see the high-vis stuff while scouts are seeing everything of value the player is doing.
I'm still very proud of myself for highlighting this when he fight signed for us.
It comes from watching Enrico Chiesa as a kid whose first touch seemed to solely exist to make an angle and space to get a shot off with his second. So I am always watching a player's first touch
to see what their aim is. Are they just trying to get the ball under control. Do they tend to stop the ball dead then look up and make decisions (Can). Or are they being proactive. Is their first touch always with a greater purpose?
And this is the stuff Wenger describes as the
'foundations' for a player. Stuff that if it isn't in place by the time they are 14 then you aren't going to see much change in it. Because after that you need to add other things to their game before they turn pro - and then it is maintaining levels, fitness, tactical prep.
Anti-woke is about the most meaningless, vaguest, non-descript shit I have read. It is a trendy way to say you don't believe someone else should have the same human rights that you do but without making you sound like a person lacking empathy bordering on sociopathy.
It is like when the media report people as being anti-Antifa. Just cancel those anti's out the way you would in a maths problem mate, whatever you are left with is the right answer?
time at the club, anybody who remains knows how to build and coach a Level 3 United side. They are fantastic against a side that will come at them like Leeds or City - their records against such teams are great. But when they need to buildup attacks or break down a block those
tend to be the game they struggle. And I think there is always a hyper-focus on personnel here when in actuality it is both. We have seen from Rodgers at Swansea, Bielsa at Leeds, Setien at Betis... you CAN coach teams this way with whatever you have.