Was Glen Johnson really that bad against Italy?

There are calls for Johnson to lose his place in the England side due to his 'dismal' performance against Itay at the World Cup, but is it really warranted?  Let's compare him to Leighton Baines, who can step on a puppy and the English press would publish articles about the state of his injured foot.

	Johnson	Baines
chances created	2	2
pass %	90	93
back pass %	36.2	50
tackles	3	2
tackle %	40	33
fouls	1	0
interceptions	0	2
blocked shots	0	0
clearances	0	0
dribbled past	1	1
key passes	2	2
true turnover index	9	4

This is a great example of how my 'true turnover index' can be skewed, especially when it comes to defenders.  Glen Johnson has a higher TTI simply because he had more possession of the ball.  He possessed the ball 15 more times than Baines and England's attack was 15% more from Johnson's side of the pitch.  Of course, that doesn't excuse bad shot selection.

Defensively, Johnson did little if nothing, but he also had less opportunity than Baines.  Italy's attack was more focused on the right side of pitch than the left, 38% to 27%.  He did have more tackles and a higher tackle % though, despite Baines' 2 interceptions.

Where Johnson is clearly better is passing.  Baines had the higher passing percentage, but half of his passes were toward his own goal, which is really not a good thing when you are a left back.  Johnson's 36.2% back pass rating is outstanding to say the least, especially paired with his 90% success rate, but his attacking abilities have never really been questioned.

The bottom line is, if Johnson should be dropped, so should Baines and probably most of the first team for that matter as really only Sturridge put on an outstanding performance.  He never has been and never will be a top class defender, but he is an above average attacking right back.

Pepe Reina or Simon Mignolet?

Since Napoli have admitted they won't be able to pay Pepe Reina to stay, he may be sold to Arsenal at a discount of £5m.  I think most would agree it would be bad business to sell Reina to a competing club like Arsenal, but what if a lesser club like West Brom or even Villa come knocking?  Should Reina be given the chance to be our number 1 again?  Should we try to keep him as a back-up? I don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't exactly blown away by Mignolet last season.  Let's look at the stats, two seasons ago for Reina and last season for Mignolet, league matches only.

	Reina	Mignolet
matches (sub)	31	38
clean sheets	14	10
goals allowed per	1.1	1.32
saves per match	1.35	1.97
saves per goal	1.27	1.7
avg claim success %	89	96
dist. success %	75	69
pass success %	70.8	67.3
aerial duel win %	85.7	83.3
long ball success %	45.8	39

The most important stats here are saves per goal and average claim success percentage, both of which go to Mignolet.  The 7% difference between the two keepers in ACSP is crippling to Reina if he has any aspirations to win his old job back.  It is an indication of what many think of the 31-year-old Spaniard: he takes unnecessary risks and has frequent momentary lapses of reason and concentration.

In his last couple of seasons, Reina appeared to be more interested in trying to create goal scoring opportunities instead of trying to prevent them.  The thing is, he's quite good at contributing to the attack, much more so than Mignolet, but what's the point if you can't do your primary job as a keeper?  I would even argue that Reina had a better defense in front of him than Mignolet does now.

Reina had Jamie Carragher and a healthy Jose Enrique for most of the season.  Though Carra was in his twilight year, he knew his limitations, made few mistakes, and was in command of Liverpool's defense, even when he wasn't on the pitch.  When he was, Carragher rarely went forward as much as Agger, Skrtel, and Sakho tend to.  The thing about Mignolet is that he doesn't take command like a keeper should and if that doesn't change, he should find his way somewhere else soon.

Sterling showed his strengths, but exposed his weaknesses vs Italy

There's no doubting that Raheem Sterling did an outstanding job introducing himself to the world yesterday.  It is nothing new to us Liverpool fans who have followed his progression the past four years.  Unfortunately, what he does worse was just as apparent as what he does well. His defense and ability to hold on to the ball left much to be desired:

chances created	1
back pass %	57.6
errant passes	3
shots	3
shot %	0
dispossessed	2
take ons	4
unsuccessful to	3
turnovers	1
true turnover index	13

He basically did two things good, albeit very good, he set-up England's only goal with a brilliant pass to Rooney and he treated the Italian defenders like orange cones, dribbling pass them at will.  That's all fine and dandy, but most of it was all for nothing.

A back pass % of 57.6 for a winger is abominable.  That means of his 33 pass attempts, 19 of them were toward his own goal and at least one of those fell into Italy's possession going in the direction they so desired.  True turnover index takes in effect whenever a player gives possession over to the other team either by shots that lead to opposition possession, errant pass, dispossession, unsuccessful take on, or offensive foul (including offside).  Sterling had the worst TTI of Englishman on the pitch.  In comparison, Rooney had a TTI of 10, Henderson and Sturridge each had a 9, Gerrard had an 8, and Welbeck had a 7.

As I stated in my last post though, I'd much rather have a player who takes risk, but the results have to prove positive.  Sterling's back pass percentage severely skews his stats and makes it seem that he is not as risky and turnover prone than he actually is.  He is only 19 though and a whole lot of fun to watch: http://vimeo.com/98246489.

Rickie Lambert makes Fabio Borini 'surplus to the cause'

With the addition of Rickie Lambert, Borini's days appear to have become numbered.  Who scored? probably sums it up best.  According to them:

Why not just stamp 'useless' on his forehead and send him packing.  Oh, that's right, we paid  £10.5m for him.  That's not a typo, £10.5m!  Borini is 23 so the 'he's still young' argument is invalid, his 'potential' will need to come to fruition very soon, like next season for whomever he plays for, or he'll fall under the David Bentley category.  If we need a fourth striker, I'd rather see the younger Luis Alberto or Samed Yeşil get a chance.  Unfortunately, we'll be lucky to get half of what was invested in Fabio.

A stat comparison with Rickie Lambert is even more daunting:

	Borini	Lambert
Apps (sub)	25 (7)	31 (6)
goals	7	13
assists	2	10
chances created	26	53
cc per	0.8	1.4
pass %	76.6	69.7
key passes	0.8	1.5
back pass %	52.9	41.4
shots pg	2.1	2.8
shot %	14	16
dispossessed pg	1.5	1.6
turnover pg	1.3	1.4

The significant stats here are assists, chances created, and key passes.  Lambert will most likely see the pitch with either Sturridge or Suarez as the front man, so he'll be most likely asked to be more of a set-up man than a finisher/poacher.  Borini's stats indicate that he lacks the ability to be a consistent second striker and poaching is seemingly the only skill he possesses.

One stat that I think should be more significant though rarely draws any attention is 'back pass %'.  Not to insult anyone's intelligence, but these are passes that go towards one goal and not towards the opposition's.  52.9% is very high and it completely invalidates Borini's superior pass % since it's much easier to pass back than to progress forward.  This probably why Lambert has five times the assists and twice as many chances created.  I'd rather have a player who tries to create goal chances and fails, then one that just gives up and passes the ball back to do it all over again.  It's not as if Lambert was turning the ball over significantly than Borini.

Would anyone take Balotelli over Sturridge right now?

Daniel Sturridge is king right now, the world is at his fingertips, but before January 31, 2011, he was a prisoner, an oppressed striker relegated to the wings and the bench of a Chelsea squad fiercely controlled by a maniacal Italian (that is called 'sarcasm').  Then he was sent out on loan to Bolton, where he scored  8 goals in 12 matches, and seemingly proved his ability up front, even with a lesser supporting cast.  Unfortunately, he got lost in the manager merry-go-round when he returned to Stamford Bridge and was oft-injured the next season-and-a-half.  I guess I should say 'thankfully', since those are the circumstances that led him to Liverpool.

Since joining LFC, he has been pure magic, scoring 31 goals and assisting 10 more in 43 matches (plus 4 goals in 6 cup matches).  He has had one major bout with injury and a few minor ones, which is concerning, but let's just hope that is behind him.  Otherwise, he's been outstanding on and off the field, which the same can't be said of his Italian counterpart.

I just don't understand all the hullabaloo over 'Super' Mario.  There's no denying his talent, but his crap attitude and spotlight antics are not worth the distraction.  I have no problem saying he was the reason City aren't three time champions, his efforts on the field were far less than off.  It's hilarious that he became such a prolific scorer for Milan, at least for the remaining of the 2012-13 season, I'm sure his lack of performance at City during the first half of the season was the Blues' fault and not his.

While I'm convinced Balotelli is more talented than Sturridge, he desperately lacks the maturity, self-respect, and work ethic that the latter displays.  Can you imagine how Balotelli would have reacted to having to play out of position for years (and young, developing years at that) like Sturridge did at Chelsea?  He would have cried and complained until his hair turned whatever color it hasn't been yet.

If there is any indication that he may be maturing and becoming more of a team player, it's the fact that he had 6 assists last season, that's 4 more than he had in any season at City and 3 more than he had his whole time there.  I won't hold my breathe though and with all that said, watch him go out and score a brace today, lead Italy to the finals, and get the most outstanding player of the tournament.  He and Sturridge are certainly both capable.

Gerrard is better than Pirlo

I have all the respect in the world for Andrea Pirlo, he is one of the few Italians that I admire, and that says a lot because I have no love for Gli Azzuri.  (There's too much blatant corruption and disrespect for the game in Italy, a history of rewriting itself for it's own greater good, but this blog is not about Italian football so I'll bite my tongue for now.)

He is not better than Gerrard though.  He does do some things slightly better, but overall, Gerrard is superior.  When I think of Pirlo, I think of George Best's quote about David Beckham: "He cannot kick with his left foot, he cannot head a ball, he cannot tackle and he doesn't score many goals. Apart from that he's all right."  Of course, Pirlo can kick with his left foot (though not penalties, right RVP?) and he's more than just all right and certainly preferred over Beckham in almost all facets, except for maybe self-marketing.

                                           Pirlo                   Gerrard
goals (pens)                           4                      13 (10)
assists                                    6                         13
pass %                                88.5                      86
chances created                    68                        67
successful dribble %              71                        71
dispossessed per                  1.2                       0.5
turnovers per                        0.3                       0.5
successful tackles                  43                        98 
tackle per match                   1.4                       2.9
tackle %                               29                        52
interceptions per                   1.3                       1.4
clearances per                      0.5                       2.7
dribbled past                        1.6                       0.6
blocked shots                       0.2                       0.4

As the stats above tell, Pirlo is slightly the better passer, chance creator, and is less error prone, but the Italian Medallion benefits from playing in a league better suited for a pace-challenged, technique-reliant 35-year-old.  It's no secret that Serie A is a slower-paced league, though I would disagree that the Prem is technically inferior (that's a subject for another day).  Also Pirlo makes less errors mostly because he is less involved in matches than Gerrard, Pirlo does very little (at least not well) if anything on the defensive side of the pitch.  One thing that did stand out for me though is Pirlo being dispossessed more per a match than Gerrard, I would figure with Stevie-G's more risque style, he would fall short in this category.

Compared to Gerrard, Pirlo is a defensive liability.  If he wasn't brilliant on the ball, he'd long be out of work. Gerrard doesn't just top Pirlo in nearly every defensive stat, he dwarfs him.  Though Pirlo's age does figure in his ability to contribute defensively as stats show he has become less involved over the years.  Regardless of all this info though, club football and international football (especially World Cup) are two vastly different animals.  So at the very least, Gerrard is better and more valuable at the club level.

Emre Can: Better than Gerrard at 20?

At first I was a bit skeptical of the seemingly endless praise for Emre Can, then I started to research his stats and watch his videos.  The kid is a beast and not only reminds me of a reckless 20-year-old Steven Gerrard, but he actually appears more advanced.

They have many similarities, Gerrard from that stage and Emre Can now.  Both are good on the ball, though I would give the edge to Can, each are creative passers, especially of the long ball, and both are solid tacklers, though Gerrard was seemingly a bit more committal, which can be a good or bad.  The one thing Can has and will have a hard time emulating is Gerrard's passion and, oddly enough, his discipline.

I thought Gerrard was a bit feisty at that age, but Can collected three-fold cards last season.  Maybe that's because Can played in Germany and Gerrard was a good ole boy in the EPL, but three-fold is three-fold.  I honestly thought Gerrard collected more cards.

I just hope Can tries to learn as much as he can from our fearless leader before he's set to take his place. Here's some eye candy from our future and our past:

Liverpool vs Man City: A look at the stats

Let's take a look at some key statistics from last season:

(league rank in parenthesis)             LFC                       MCFC
overall possession %                     55.8 (5)                   57.6 (2)
pass success %                             84.5 (4)                   86.1 (1)
chances created                             488 (3)                    533 (1)
shots conceded pg                        12.8 (8)                     9.5 (1)
shots OT pg                                   6.8 (1)                     6.3 (2)
fouled pg                                      10.8 (6)                     8.9 (20)
offsides pg                                     2.1 (9)                     1.6 (19)
open play goals                              55 (3)                       66 (1)
counter attack goals                         9 (1)                        5 (2)
set piece goals                                26 (1)                      20 (2)
crosses pg                                      17 (20)                    23 (6)
through ball pg                                5 (1)                         3 (4)
long balls pg                                   56 (18)                    55 (20)
short passes pg                              469 (4)                    502 (3)
possession in own half %                 29 (13)                    23 (1)
possession in opp half %                 28 (11)                    31 (1)

Clearly some of these are obvious: you keep the ball more (possession %), you make better decisions on the ball (pass success %), you create more chances, you don't allow your opponent many chances, and you keep the ball out of your own half, you've got a better chance to win more games.

What surprised me the most was LFC's attack efficiency, they scored more with less opportunity.  They had a goal per chance opportunity of 4.83 compared to Man City at 5.22.  Against the run of play which factors in possession pct per match, Liverpool is even more impressive since their possession pct was not as high (8.66 compared to 9.06).

Which leaves the white elephant in the room, defense.  Liverpool was not bad defensively, they were just merely average while Man City was very good (though not excellent).  The problem in statistically analyzing defensive performance is that it is nearly impossible to quantify things such as 'forced back pass' or 'passing lane reduction'.  These things limit opportunities of an opponent to score, but unless you watch every match and keep statistics yourself, which neither I nor no one I know has the time to do so, it's just not going to happen.  Plus there are judgement calls.

One thing I find interesting is how little opponent passing pct really matters, even in the attacking third.  According to StatsBomb, through April 21st, Man City was allowing a pass success rate of 81.5% overall and 68.2% in the final third, while LFC were superior in both at 79.2% and 66.7%.  The problem being that direction of pass is not being considered, Man City may be forcing their opponents to make back and horizontal passes by cutting off passing lanes/opportunities.

The bottom line is Man City were the best at preventing opponents from scoring chances, which unfortunately we can only validate by shots conceded per match, and though Liverpool were more efficient offensively, they created less chances for themselves overall (even though it lead to just one more goal overall).

Some observations that I think separated the two sides are lack of discipline by Liverpool defenders, especially Skrtel and Sakho, and not having a true defensive midfielder on the pitch a lot of the time. It also doesn't help that MCFC just has better defensive midfielders in Fernandinho and Javi Garcia with Yaya Toure occasionally deputized.  One of these problems may have been resolved with the addition of Emre Can, but he is closer to a box-to-box than a defensive midfielder and the lack of discipline has to be addressed by the coaching staff or else look for those who will listen.
                  

Adam Lallana is not even worth £15m

Again, like Lambert,  I like Lallana, but not for £15m... maybe £8m.  Apparently Southampton now want upwards of £25m, that's just laughable.  There are many other players out there that are just as good, if not better, that we can get for that much or less and honestly, do we really need another midfielder right now?  We have Suso back, who is only 20, and I think Jordon Ibe at least deserves a chance.

If they are going to spend £20m+ for an attacking midfielder, it should be for a young, talented, and somewhat proven player like Xherdan Shaqiri, Lazar Markovic, or even a forward/winger like Cristian Tello (who won't cost as much btw).  Lallana is 26 and he'll need to improve as much next season as he did the last, if he's even worth £15m.  I just don't see that happening, especially with all the competition at Anfield.

An interesting read: Xherdan Shaqiri vs Adam Lallana

Assessing Rickie Lambert

When I first heard we had spent £4m for Rickie Lee Lambert, I almost lost my shit.  Really?  Really, Mr. Rodgers?  What happened to our no spending for players over 23?  Not only that, but Rickie Lee Lambert, 32 year old striker who has spent a total of 2 seasons in top flight football?  It sounds crazy, but... it just might work.

He obviously won't be a starter, and if he does, we'll be in a world of shit to begin with.  I can see him being beneficial as a late match spark, as he provides a different approach then Sturridge or Suarez, and he'll also get starts in lesser cup matches, which should prove beneficial to his stat padding.

Listen, I don't dislike Lambert, I just think he's a poor man's Dirk Kuyt.  Might as well bring him back, if you're going to go that route.

Just a glimpse of Maxi

Dirk Kuyt scored the winning goal, Javier Mascherano was a beast, Daniel Agger re-introduced himself to the footballing world, and Steven Gerrard was, well, Stevie-G, but the player who I thought put in the most important performance today was Maxi Rodriguez. If Liverpool are to finish in the top four, it's clear they are going to need a creative spark from somewhere and Maxi showed against Everton he's more than capable of filling that role.

Like Xabi before him, Rodriguez' passing prowess went unnoticed as the pundits, press, and fellow bloggers praised the performances of the aforementioned (as well as Carra and Insua, who both played well too I might add). In fact, I have yet to read anywhere about how Maxi's brilliant bloop pass to N'Gog set up the corner that lead to the game-winning goal. It was just one of about five that raised my eye brows. Not to mention, the Argentine showed a toughness that quite frankly before today, I felt he failed to possess.

The next big question is whether or not Rafa will try to integrate Maxi into a more central midfield position where he can utilize his skills with greater area to operate. He primarily played on the left today (a bit odd considering we got that Riera fella) and though he has the ability to play out wide, I personally think it's a waste of talent. Regardless, it was a promising performance and as he becomes more familiar and comfortable with his teammates and his role with the team, more great things are bound to come.

(By the way, I will not be updating this blog regularly but only sporadically due to other commitments. Sorry, that's just the way it is, but I greatly appreciate all those who read it. Cheers.)