Arsenal 4-2 Leicester Player Rating and Match Reaction

Raya 7 - Nothing really to do, couldn’t do anything about either goal and was largely a spectator beyond that


Timber 7 - Supported Saka getting forward, far more natural at right back than left


Saliba 6.5 - Struggled with Vardy a couple of times


Gabriel 7 - Being a menace from set pieces again


Califiori 6 - Gets forward well, but if Buononotte hadn’t been a dick could have seen red (although would have been harsh)



Partey 6 - Wandering Jew


Rice 7 - Supported the attack well but should be playing at 6


Trossard 9 - Unlucky not to have more than one goal on the day


Martinelli 7 - Goal and an assist but still not quite there


Saka 8 - Got forward often and looked dangerous


Havertz 7.5 - Fortuitous goal, but lots of hard work and unlucky not to have scored before hand



Subs

Nwaneri 7 - Good enough to be starting games


Sterling 6 - Didn’t have enough time to make an impact


Jesus 6 - As with Sterling, although was involved in our 4th goal




Can’t really find massive fault with yesterday, to blow a two goal lead is undesirable but the fact is a team like Leicester is going to get forward occasionally and have half chances, the first goal by Justin is a bit of a fluke and the second is an exceptional volley. And up the other end we have a keeper having one of the games of his life.
Would have been thoroughly disappointing after we’d done the hard work to get through very tough fixtures to drop points today but fortunately we got there in the end.

I think there’s room for improvement in terms of being more clinical and getting the balance right between defence and attack at home. But no one was terrible, and in the end we got the three points we needed and the three points we deserved

So you've given Nwaneri a positive comment but Sterling who came on 11 minutes before him "didn't have time to make an impact" :haha:

Oh and giving Saliba a 6.5 is absurd, he was generally (and typically) excellent on the day, it would be a surprise if a striker of Vardy's experience and ability didn't continue to give any defender the occasional difficulty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mac76

So you've given Nwaneri a positive comment but Sterling who came on 11 minutes before him "didn't have time to make an impact" :haha:

Oh and giving Saliba a 6.5 is absurd, he was generally (and typically) excellent on the day, it would be a surprise if a striker of Vardy's experience and ability didn't continue to give any defender the occasional difficulty

---

I was being generous with Sterling, he was largely anonymous. Where as in the shorter period of time he was on Nwaneri had far more impact on the game

At the risk of explaining how I grade players, especially with defensive performances they get marked down heavily if they make mistakes as mistakes lead to goals. In fairness the lead up to our first goal did start with Saliba fouling Vardy and given how referees are with us at the moment, it wouldn’t have been beyond the realms of possibility for them to have scrubbed that goal because of this.

Then he gave away the foul which led to the free kick from which they scored. It was clumsy. Vardy can be a tricky player to defend against but he’s also 37….the pace he had, has long since deserted him and on another day Saliba would have had in his back pocket for the whole game like a jazz mag on a teenage boy.


6 is my baseline score, you go above that you’ve done better than an average performance and below that and it’s a poor performance. I could see your objection if I’d given Saliba 4 or something silly like that….but 6.5 which was higher than Califiori. Well you’re entitled to your somewhat histrionic opinion, but yeah calling it absurd bit strong but you do you I guess

Welk as i've always said 6 is a ridiculous baseline, you wouldn't buy a gadget from Amazon if everyone gave it 6/10, you'd probably only do so if it was at least a 7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mac76

Welk as i've always said 6 is a ridiculous baseline, you wouldn't buy a gadget from Amazon if everyone gave it 6/10, you'd probably only do so if it was at least a 7

---

Almost as ridiculous as comparing a product review with player ratings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn

Almost as ridiculous as comparing a product review with player ratings

---

Everyone in the universe except you regards 6/10 as a measure of anything to mean 'not good enough' - "a 7 out of 10 performance" is even something of a cliche to mean "perfectly fine, not exceptional'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mac76

Everyone in the universe except you regards 6/10 as a measure of anything to mean 'not good enough' - "a 7 out of 10 performance" is even something of a cliche to mean "perfectly fine, not exceptional'

---

You’re doing that thing again, when you think you’re adding substance to your argument by asserting that you’re speaking for anyone but yourself. You clearly missed your calling as a Fox News analyst

You give me the distinct impression that you’ve never seen most player ratings on either website or newspapers where six is usually the barometer for average/ok/nothing special and 7 or above is good.

But if you want to keep arguing about this till the heat death of the universe, especially when my player ratings (your querulous objections not withstanding) have been long established, you go for it and I’ll enjoy Sunday lunch

https://x.com/skysportsnews/status/1...k_DvSqUkaQFrjw

This is an absolute joke.

Just makes you wonder how long Gallagher has left looks like he's on deaths door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn

https://x.com/skysportsnews/status/1...k_DvSqUkaQFrjw

This is an absolute joke.

---

I agree that isn't a booking. But Trossard didn't prevent a quick restart either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

I agree that isn't a booking. But Trossard didn't prevent a quick restart either.

---

That’s the point. How can you quote letter of the law for one and say oh we don’t want to see players sent off for the other

I do agree with punishing time wasting but clear and obvious time wasting….like smashing the ball half way up the pitch long after the whistle has gone. Something that they wanted to penalise presumably in good faith has become officious and arbitrary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn

https://x.com/skysportsnews/status/1...k_DvSqUkaQFrjw

This is an absolute joke.

---

"If you book players for that, you'll have a lot of players sat in the stands this season".

Yeah. For 2 weeks, until they wise up.

This kind of thinking infuriates me.

Like, when the back pass law was introduced, there was utter chaos for a while, until keepers started learning how to use their feet or getting benched for those that could.

Nowadays, being able to use your feet is a fundamental skill for a 'keeper and we wonder how we ever tolerated shit like Denmark pulled in Euro 92.

The same principle applies to disciplining players for breaching laws.

All you'd have to do is apply an incredibly strict interpretation of the law and make it clear that this is they way we're doing it from now on. Kick the ball after the whistle has blown? You're booked. Complain afterwards? Off. Already on a yellow? Off.

The first weekend this applied, you'd see 100 yellows and about 10 reds.

The second weekend, you'd see 50 yellows and 5 reds.

After that, we'd be back to normal and we'd wonder how we tolerated blatant timewasting for so long.

Same applies to dissent.

Talk to the ref when you're not the captain? Automatic yellow.

Swear at him? Off.

We wonder why refereeing standards are so poor, it's because the way you progress as a ref isn't based on skill, it's based on being able to deal with vile, hate-filled abuse from all sides on a twice-weekly basis (also skin colour, but that's another discussion).

The person who's really good at deciding what a foul is but refuses to put up with being called every name under the sun, being offered out in car parks and having no power to deal with it is going to pack it in, whereas someone who's not as skilled but has thicker skin is going to stick around.

Every week we see refs being screamed at by professional athletes and just putting up with it, if they had it within their power to send the fuckers off if they refuse to show respect, that would filter down to the lower levels and good refs would actually start working their way up the ranks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WMUG

if they had it within their power to send the fuckers off if they refuse to show respect

---

Don't they?

I agree with your post, but don't they have that power already?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters

Don't they?

I agree with your post, but don't they have that power already?

---

Technically yes, but presumably any individual ref would be disciplined for not following procedure if they went off on their own. You need the PGMOL to state clearly and unequivically what the new guidelines are regarding dissent, and for it to be enforced without exception from then on.

That would then filter down to the grass roots level. Rugby refs don't get abuse even there, from what I've heard.

It is a funny one because for years - decades really - this has been an issue in the game.
And there have been repeated proclamations that they're going to get tough on this sort of thing and then they just...don't.
No-one seems to have the balls to send off 4 players in a game until the idiots learn to behave themselves. The culture of abuse of refs is so ingrained in the game.