Ratings vs Maidstone

[WrexhamTID]

Dunn - 6
Jennings - 5
Pearson - 9
Smith - 8
Roberts - 6
Wedgebury - 5
Kelly - 6
Rutherford - 6
Deverdics - 5
Quigley - 7
Holroyd - 6

[The Real Deal]

Dunn 7 - Not really tested
Roberts 7 - Steady
Smith 6 - Quite game on his return
Pearson 9 - Best player as always
Jennings 5 - Offers no threat going forward
Kelly 5 - poor display, same as usual
Rutherford 5 - Poor finish when through on goal
Wedgebury 7 - never stopped running and competing
Deverdics 3 - How did we get lumbered with him?
Quigley 5 - Off the pace compared to previous matches
Holroyd 6 - Kept himself busy without been great

[Trodat]

Originally Posted by Ddraigoch

Dunn -6 flapped at one but otherwise ok

Roberts -7 thought he was decent and joined up with the attacks when ever he could
Manny - 8 thought he was outstanding, never missed a header.
Pearson - 9 MOTM, scored, kicked, blocked and headed everything that came near him. Had a bit of set to with Wedgbury who looked absolutely furious but if everyone had SP's desire to win we'd have walked the league by now!
Jennings -7 don't get the criticism aimed at him as he ran his heart out. His distribution could be better but I thought he was decent.

Rutherford -6 had a great chance in the first half.Does the ball carrying well but his distribution is poor on times.
Wedgbury - 5 by his own high standards, he had a poor game today
Kelly - 7 tried to keep the ball going forward, especially in the first half. He seemed to enjoy the space he was given
Deverdics - 5 didn't seem to happen for him today. However the ball through to Holroyd in the 2nd half with the outside of his left foot was delicious. Was well p**d off at being taken off

Quigley - 6 seemed to be off the pace and never looked likely to score (apart from hitting the bar) when he should have scored.
Holroyd - 6 seemed ineffective alongside Quigley and maybe the switch back from the left hand position to up front will take a bit of time.

Franks - 5 runs around a lot but doesn't offer anything more than Deverdics
Ainge - 6 offers himself but not really able to offer a significant contribution.

Davies, Darlington & Wright - made a change on the hour which was nice to see!

3 points, a clean sheet and on to Bromley

Agree with almost all of that - Jennings at a 5 for me offered little bar the odd dramatics when tickled by the opposition (to boot did anyone lese notice Wedgbury's poor efforts at simulation?? - embarassing).

[Colonel D]

Originally Posted by Ddraigoch

Dunn -6 flapped at one but otherwise ok

Roberts -7 thought he was decent and joined up with the attacks when ever he could
Manny - 8 thought he was outstanding, never missed a header.
Pearson - 9 MOTM, scored, kicked, blocked and headed everything that came near him. Had a bit of set to with Wedgbury who looked absolutely furious but if everyone had SP's desire to win we'd have walked the league by now!
Jennings -7 don't get the criticism aimed at him as he ran his heart out. His distribution could be better but I thought he was decent.

Rutherford -6 had a great chance in the first half.Does the ball carrying well but his distribution is poor on times.
Wedgbury - 5 by his own high standards, he had a poor game today
Kelly - 7 tried to keep the ball going forward, especially in the first half. He seemed to enjoy the space he was given
Deverdics - 5 didn't seem to happen for him today. However the ball through to Holroyd in the 2nd half with the outside of his left foot was delicious. Was well p**d off at being taken off

Quigley - 6 seemed to be off the pace and never looked likely to score (apart from hitting the bar) when he should have scored.
Holroyd - 6 seemed ineffective alongside Quigley and maybe the switch back from the left hand position to up front will take a bit of time.

Franks - 5 runs around a lot but doesn't offer anything more than Deverdics
Ainge - 6 offers himself but not really able to offer a significant contribution.

Davies, Darlington & Wright - made a change on the hour which was nice to see!

3 points, a clean sheet and on to Bromley

A balanced ratings as some go from 3-9 , which is ridiculas.
The first 25 minutes were very good with Kelly excellent and then Maidstone get back into the game.
We had more chances in this period than in about 6 games earlier in the season , so in short we were entertained.
The reason Wedgebury wasn't in the game so much was because he had little play to break up.
I still contend we have changed our tactics post DK in as much as we try to play the ball through midfield now .although we tend to revert to the big boot when we lose our shape.

[John Neals Dynasty]

Originally Posted by pagl

At this stage of the season anyone less than a 7 should be dropped

Anyone giving..5 I can't take seriously it means they are indecisive for eg: it's either a 5 or a 6, a 6 or a 7 I'm no big fan of Kelly but to give him 4.5 for Saturday is ridiculous he was only pipped by Pearson for Mom the whole side were bar a few not good Saturday but we won and teams that play bad and win have a chance of succeeding in whatever competition it is.

If we go by your scenario of anyone less than a 7 should be dropped then the side would have no consistency, we are non league not Man City capable of fielding 3 teams, some fans need to get real.
Posted via mobile theme

[moynkeepthefaith]

Originally Posted by John Neals Dynasty

Anyone giving..5 I can't take seriously it means they are indecisive for eg: it's either a 5 or a 6, a 6 or a 7 I'm no big fan of Kelly but to give him 4.5 for Saturday is ridiculous he was only pipped by Pearson for Mom the whole side were bar a few not good Saturday but we won and teams that play bad and win have a chance of succeeding in whatever competition it is.

If we go by your scenario of anyone less than a 7 should be dropped then the side would have no consistency, we are non league not Man City capable of fielding 3 teams, some fans need to get real.
Posted via mobile theme

Precisely my point regarding the less than 7 concept. Regarding Kelly I also agree - for me he was actually MOM and 8 but its always hard to deny Pearson for everything he brings so I can understand some preferring him.
Not sure about your assumption on 5. I have given 5 before and for me at least it means not a disaster but not impressive either.
Overall I am not sure we were Bad on Saturday but we were also not impressive so sorry to say probably a 5 for the team

[John Neals Dynasty]

Originally Posted by moynkeepthefaith

Precisely my point regarding the less than 7 concept. Regarding Kelly I also agree - for me he was actually MOM and 8 but its always hard to deny Pearson for everything he brings so I can understand some preferring him.
Not sure about your assumption on 5. I have given 5 before and for me at least it means not a disaster but not impressive either.
Overall I am not sure we were Bad on Saturday but we were also not impressive so sorry to say probably a 5 for the team

I wasn't saying nobody should get a 5 it's this 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 etc don't make sense.
Posted via mobile theme

[pagl]

Originally Posted by John Neals Dynasty

Anyone giving..5 I can't take seriously it means they are indecisive for eg: it's either a 5 or a 6, a 6 or a 7 I'm no big fan of Kelly but to give him 4.5 for Saturday is ridiculous he was only pipped by Pearson for Mom the whole side were bar a few not good Saturday but we won and teams that play bad and win have a chance of succeeding in whatever competition it is.

If we go by your scenario of anyone less than a 7 should be dropped then the side would have no consistency, we are non league not Man City capable of fielding 3 teams, some fans need to get real.
Posted via mobile theme

JND - it was to generate debate

Marks out of 10 are a weird one as some people think a player starts on a 6 and then moves up and down - quite ridiculous.

A player has to start on 0 as he has done nothing at the start of a game. Starting on a 6 means they get that for putting their kit on the right way round and finding the pitch - ridiculous.

[moynkeepthefaith]

Originally Posted by pagl

JND - it was to generate debate

Marks out of 10 are a weird one as some people think a player starts on a 6 and then moves up and down - quite ridiculous.

A player has to start on 0 as he has done nothing at the start of a game. Starting on a 6 means they get that for putting their kit on the right way round and finding the pitch - ridiculous.

I actually would say they start at 5 as they have done nothing good or bad but that's because I am a HC perhaps