Burnley v Southampton - Player Ratings

[claretgimmer]

Heaton 8 Mr Reliable, no chance with goal Englands No 1
Bardsley 6 Ok 1st half, poor second,
Tarkowski 7 Steady away
Mee 7 As Tarks
Taylor 7 Starting to look Prem quality
Hendrick 5 Back to old GH littlr or no contribution, slow on the ball weak in possession
Cork 8 Tried to make things happen, could maybe have done better with Redmond prior to goal
Westwood 7 Always busy, didn`t happen at times but never gave up, showed the commitment we need all players to show
McNeil 7 Looked lethargic without the ball, seen him make better use than he did today
Wood 4 Makes some good runs but poor control, weak in possession, chooses to many wrong options for my liking
Barnes 8 Robbed of one pen, cool as a cucumber on the second, in between did what AB does and always carries a threat no matter how well he is
playing

JBG 8 Should have started, to much sentiment shown by Dyche in selecting Hendrick

Dyche 4 Doesn`t seem to know how to change things round when it isn`t working without substitutions, but leaves his subs too late in the game.

[Dazzler]

Redmond 8
Ward-Prowse 8
Barnes 8
Heaton 7
McNeil 7
Bardsley 7
Targett 7

The rest 6's

[CaptJohn]

Well done to the lads for sticking at it until the end and well done to Dyche for getting his substitutions spot on today. If you are bringing on Crouch you need to swing those balls into the box and both JBG and Brady kept the balls coming. Crouch absolutely terrified their defence and ultimately caused sufficient havoc to induce the handball.

Heaton 7
Bardsley 7
Tarkowski 7
Mee 7
Taylor 8 My MOM. Thought he did very well today and is starting to work well with McNeill.
Hendrick 5 Not at the races today and I would have hooked him on 60 minutes for JBG.
Cork 8 I thought he had an excellent game today.
Westwood 6
McNeill 7
Barnes 7
Wood 5 I would have had him off on 70 minutes for Crouch.

Gudmundsson 7

[ashtonlongsider]

Heaton 8-Another excellent game
Bardsley 8*-MOM Felt he drove the team on in second half
Tarkowski 7-Solid
Mee 6- His lack of pace can at times be telling and I felt he was targeted.
Taylor 8-Excellent again
Hendrick 6-The lad gets through a lot of work and is asked to plug gaps.
Westwood 7-Worked hard but gave ball aways on a couple of occasions that could have been costly
Cork 8-Think Corky is back to something like his best.
McNeil 7-Played very well in pockets and offers something different.
Barnes 7-I had a feeling he may have lost it after the 1st half pen decision but he kept his cool and brill conversion
Wood 7-Worked hard, still think its a good partnership in the making with Ashley.

JBG 7-For period on. Good sub by SD.
Crouch 7-I know he wasn't on long but he did make a difference.

[Rumbletonk]

Heaton 6
Bardsley 6
Taylor 6
Tarks 5
Mee 4
McNeil 6
Hendrick 5
Cork 5
Westwood 5
Barnes 5
Wood 5

JBG 6

Mo Farah in the London Olympics - 7

[KlyBfc]

Rumbletonk and there was another higher up, did you think that was a GOOD performance yesterday ?

I personally thought it was average hence my marking. Did Southampton deserve a point? As an away side I’d say yes, 1 scored 1, off the line, a 1 on 1 missed some nice bits of interchange.
We had 20mins end of the first half where we looked better but that aside the second half until crouch came on and we lumped it into the box we looked devoid of ideas. Lots of effort but poor in posssion, redmond caused us problems all day long.

No doubting the penalty would have changed the game, but we didn’t get it.

I may have been harsh on heaton (up to a 7) and perhaps Barnes (up to a 6) though the latter in possession waisted a number of good opportunities to create chances today.

I am happy if people think we were good yesterday (a 7 or above) I don’t and in fact I thought we were slightly poorer (certainly going forward) than against Newcastle when we lost.

[Rumbletonk]

Rumbletonk and there was another higher up, did you think that was a GOOD performance yesterday ?

I personally thought it was average hence my marking. Did Southampton deserve a point? As an away side I’d say yes, 1 scored 1, off the line, a 1 on 1 missed some nice bits of interchange.
We had 20mins end of the first half where we looked better but that aside the second half until crouch came on and we lumped it into the box we looked devoid of ideas. Lots of effort but poor in posssion, redmond caused us problems all day long.

No doubting the penalty would have changed the game, but we didn’t get it.

I may have been harsh on heaton (up to a 7) and perhaps Barnes (up to a 6) though the latter in possession waisted a number of good opportunities to create chances today.

I am happy if people think we were good yesterday (a 7 or above) I don’t and in fact I thought we were slightly poorer (certainly going forward) than against Newcastle when we lost.

Fair enough, if that's how you see it. Everything is relative as I look at it. Compare yesterday to every other game this season and I came away thinking it was a decent performance

[MACCA]

Heaton 7 nothing to do, other than 1 smart stop low down 2nd half
Bardsley 5 in still holding out my faith he will eventually put s decent cross in. So, so poor today going forward, he wasted I think every cross
Tarkowski 8 a best
Mee 6
Taylor 7 another solid game but like Bardsley, couldn't cross, and that dive... please
Hendrick 5 back to being the Jeff we know, stopped counting after he lost the ball 4 times Inn the first 25 minutes, 1 a very promising opportunity
Westwood 7 ratter, works hard but his dead balls were rank
Cork 6
McNeill 6 dead balls rank bad, crossing rank bad, let's hope it's a 1 off
Barnes 6 marginally better than Epod made his own luck. Pen looked like he played for it, need to see again
Wood 5

Glad we got a point as the same tactic of lump it forward for the defenders to head away got predictably. A point is probably a fair result, however I'd like us to at least start trying to play football. Today was the day we should of* kept it in the deck and tried to play a bit.
The Southampton manager obviously did his homework and pretty much nullified us with ease.

[TVC15]

It’s strange how that same manager said they were under massive pressure, the result was fair and that Southampton were lucky.
Even stranger that we hit the bar, missed 2 sitters and should have had 2 penalties.

Hardly a game which Southampton “nullified with ease”

[MACCA]

It’s strange how that same manager said they were under massive pressure, the result was fair and that Southampton were lucky.
Even stranger that we hit the bar, missed 2 sitters and should have had 2 penalties.

Hardly a game which Southampton “nullified with ease”

Did he?
Not seen the interviews, but wow Fair enough on his part.
I thought we created very little to be honest, but like I've said before I mark as a neutral and I think if we'd have done that away from home people's views would be different. We hardly cut them open or had sustained periods of pressure.

I'm sure you are correct, and we should have had 3 or 4 goals

[TVC15]

We should have had 2 penalties and Wood and Barnes both missed golden chances and Barnes hit the bar....so yes that’s 3 or 4 goals....
Nothing to do with being a Burnley fan or a neutral - that’s just what happened.
They should have scored at least 2 goals btw - Danny Ings’ chance was similar to Barnes’ one on one.

[MACCA]

And their chance off the line 2nd half too. Oh and the Heaton save...
I'm about 65 mins in watching it again, and if we are judging the game on good chances to score it should be 2-1 Saints at the minute and its still 0-0

I'll accept your opinion that we should of* had 4, we obviously view football very differently

[TVC15]

Chance off the line was our player wasn’t it and after seeing the replay of the Heaton save it looked pretty straightforward.
So you don’t think the Chris Wood shot was a good chance ?
Their goal was also at best a half chance.
Haven’t seen the expected goals rate stats but I would be amazed if it did not show us a decent margin ahead of Southampton.

[MACCA]

Chance off the line was our player wasn’t it and after seeing the replay of the Heaton save it looked pretty straightforward.
So you don’t think the Chris Wood shot was a good chance ?
Their goal was also at best a half chance.
Haven’t seen the expected goals rate stats but I would be amazed if it did not show us a decent margin ahead of Southampton.

By 3 or 4 probably

[quoonbeatz]

heaton - 7 made himself big against ings and saved the header comfortably enough, beaten by a good strike for the goal

bardsley - 8 drove us on 2nd half and had acres of space to get the ball into the box

tarkowski - 7 solid enough

mee - 6 bit off it yesterday, i thought

taylor - 8 another excellent game to go with his performance at old trafford

cork - 7 getting closer to the heights of last year by the game, showed great feet to get out of a couple of tight situations

westwood - 6 busy as usual but gave the ball away cheaply far too often

hendrick - 6 does a solid job out there but at home we need more creativity from the wings

mcneil - 7 some particularly excellent crosses in the 1st half but he's clearly tiring after an hour or so at the moment

barnes - 8 thought he was a red card waiting to happen after the penalty debacle and in truth, having been booked for the 'dive' it was surprising taylor didn't go the whole hog and send him off. superb character to keep his head after that, so unlucky with the volley against the bar and a cool AF head to convert the pressure penalty at the death with ease.

wood - 5 blowing hot and cold by the game and this was very much a cold one. skying his first half chance after doing all the hard work was really poor.

gudmundsson - 7 freshened things up and gave us a greater threat from that side. top header into barnes for the chance that hit the bar.


football-wise this wasn't a great performance against a team who came to sit in and hit us on the break with their pace, which almost worked a treat for them. we were lacking in intensity and far too often booted it long mainly because we lack that kind of pace that made them such a threat. ings going off was certainly good news for us as him and redmond were clearly their best players.

as such, they looked pretty comfortable once ahead and it wouldn't have been a surprise for them to see the game out, despite out late pressure.

the more said about the officials the better, as this was an absolutely disgraceful performance, especially from the ref and liner on the longside, and it needs to be highlighted. not just for the non-penalty either, the non-booking of slattery near the start was appalling.

a cracking point in the end as we didn't play well and both sides could perhaps feel aggrieved they haven't taken all three.

[TVC15]

By 3 or 4 probably

No by 1.5 or 2.

[MACCA]

No by 1.5 or 2.

Quote me and let me know.

[Tall Paul]

Chance off the line was our player wasn’t it and after seeing the replay of the Heaton save it looked pretty straightforward.
So you don’t think the Chris Wood shot was a good chance ?
Their goal was also at best a half chance.
Haven’t seen the expected goals rate stats but I would be amazed if it did not show us a decent margin ahead of Southampton.

It was 2.04 v 0.78 expected goals.

[the_magic_rat]

Heaton 7

Bardsley 6
Tarkowski 6
Mee 6
Taylor 8 MOM

Hendrick 5
Westwood 5
Cork 7
McNeil 7

Barnes 7
Wood 6

JBG 6
Crouch 6

[MACCA]

It was 2.04 v 0.78 expected goals.

So the 2 penalties for us v the 1 off the line for them?

Not sure how expected goals work mind, as I've seen our was low previously yet we've had more than 1 or 2 golden chances.

[Tall Paul]

So the 2 penalties for us v the 1 off the line for them?

Not sure how expected goals work mind, as I've seen our was low previously yet we've had more than 1 or 2 golden chances.

The penalty that wasn't given isn't included.

Here's a graphical representation that might help you understand. Each circle represents a shot with bigger circles representing bigger chances. The stars are goals. Our shots are in blue with Southampton's in yellow.

[TVC15]

So the 2 penalties for us v the 1 off the line for them?

Not sure how expected goals work mind, as I've seen our was low previously yet we've had more than 1 or 2 golden chances.

I know a lot of people criticise all the new statistics but personally I think expected goals is one of the better ones. It’s better than the possession stats or attempts at goal / on target etc.

Link here for explanation. I doubt whether any golden chances would not register on this data. What it does also highlight and I know this is common logic - but I’d you are constantly scoring low on expected goals you are not scoring many goals / winning many games because there are only so many worldies / half chances you are going to score.
If you are making a lot of very good / relatively easy chances then there is more chance of a Barnes or Wood type player scoring these chances whereas the Agueros, Hazards and Salahs of this world will convert not only these easier chances but also the harder chances that our quality of players rarely do.

There are some definite correlations between these stats and league positions etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40699431" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hibsclaret]

So with the pen not given included we are looking at expected goal ratio nearing 3. That is very high for a prem game and indicates we created a good few good chances. We should have won approx 3 - 1

[MACCA]

So with the pen not given included we are looking at expected goal ratio nearing 3. That is very high for a prem game and indicates we created a good few good chances. We should have won approx 3 - 1

Because our good chances all deserve/should to go in, where as Ings 1 v 1, effort that flashed across goal, and the 1 off the line don't.

We should have won at least 3-1, that would have showed our dominance and superiority in the game.

[yorkyclaret]

Because our good chances all deserve/should to go in, where as Ings 1 v 1, effort that flashed across goal, and the 1 off the line don't.

We should have won at least 3-1, that would have showed our dominance and superiority in the game.

But goals change games, had we taken the lead they would have started making more, and better chances.

[bfcmik]

Heaton 7
Bardsley 8
Tarkowski 7
Mee 7
Taylor 7
Hendrick 7
Westwood 7
Cork 8*
McNeill 7
Barnes 7
Wood 7

[MACCA]

But goals change games, had we taken the lead they would have started making more, and better chances.

Just glad Ings fluffed the big chance early on, as they might have been dangerous on the break with a lot of time left.

Scoring when they did, meant they played to hang onto it IMO, rather than really commmiting for a 2nd.

All irrelivent, the score is what it is, you don't get points for good chances or the expected goals stat

[burnleymik]

heaton - 7 made himself big against ings and saved the header comfortably enough, beaten by a good strike for the goal

bardsley - 8 drove us on 2nd half and had acres of space to get the ball into the box

gudmundsson - 7 freshened things up and gave us a greater threat from that side. top header into barnes for the chance that hit the bar.

.

Spot on. Was wondering if more people would pick up on how much better we looked on that right flank once JBG came on and Bardsley started pushing forward.

[nil_desperandum]

Just glad Ings fluffed the big chance early on,

So you're not giving Heaton credit for this then?. I note in your ratings you said he had nothing to do.
I thought he was really solid throughout the game, was quick off his line, made some excellent interceptions, caught the ball well when the ball came in the box, and that the save from Ings was absolutely crucial / pivotal. (No chance with the goal, but nearly got to it).
Southampton take the lead after 6 minutes and we're very much on the backfoot.
(Heaton's leadership qualities were again very much in evidence throughout)

[MACCA]

So you're not giving Heaton credit for this then?. I note in your ratings you said he had nothing to do.
I thought he was really solid throughout the game, was quick off his line, made some excellent interceptions, caught the ball well when the ball came in the box, and that the save from Ings was absolutely crucial / pivotal. (No chance with the goal, but nearly got to it).
Southampton take the lead after 6 minutes and we're very much on the backfoot.
(Heaton's leadership qualities were again very much in evidence throughout)

Was just pointing out to those that keep saying, it'd have been a different game had we scored first, or that Southampton didn't cause us too many problems and their expected goals were only 0.75 or whatever that means.
I thought they had a couple of real good chances, and fotunately for us they didn't take them, not that we didn't have some of our own later on mind.

Just balancing up the point to the few that think we dominatedthe game and should have won by 3 or 4...

[TVC15]

Macca - you clearly have not bothered trying to understand whst expected goals means...which is fine other than you keep on referring to it in the wrong context !!
Southampton’s was 0.75 partly because their goal was at best a half chance which was taken very well by Redmond. If you had only once chance in a game but it was an open net from say 3 yards you would have a ratio of about 0.95 I imagine. The 0.75 they got means basically that they missed a decent chance in Ings and then had a couple of half decent chances in the header and the one from a corner...their goal does not even hardly register in this i’m guessing.

Our 2.04 does not include the penalty we were given but does include our goal....hence we could have scored 3 or 4 because the volley probably registers quite a low score as again half chance at best.

Not sure anyone is has said we could have won by 3 or 4 (but can’t be arsed checking) but we could have scored 3 or 4 and they could easily have got 2. Whatever way you look at it we had the better chances to score - but it was still a pretty even game and other than the very clear injustice it was a pretty fair result.
If Danny Ings would have stayed on i’m not sure we would have got a result.

[TVC15]

Macca - you clearly have not bothered trying to understand whst expected goals means...which is fine other than you keep on referring to it in the wrong context !!
Southampton’s was 0.75 partly because their goal was at best a half chance which was taken very well by Redmond. If you had only once chance in a game but it was an open net from say 3 yards you would have a ratio of about 0.95 I imagine. The 0.75 they got means basically that they missed a decent chance in Ings and then had a couple of half decent chances in the header and the one from a corner...their goal does not even hardly register in this i’m guessing.

Our 2.04 does not include the penalty we were given but does include our goal....hence we could have scored 3 or 4 because the volley probably registers quite a low score as again half chance at best.

Not sure anyone has said we could have won by 3 or 4 (but can’t be arsed checking) but we could have scored 3 or 4 and they could easily have got 2. Whatever way you look at it we had the better chances to score - but it was still a pretty even game and other than the very clear injustice it was a pretty fair result.
If Danny Ings would have stayed on i’m not sure we would have got a result.

[Tall Paul]

It's like banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain expected goals on here.

[MACCA]

Now he's explained it 3 times, I finally get it.

Not that anything other than the full time score really matters come May.

[FactualFrank]

Copy and paste let me down there! Only bottom half counts

She said.