Ratings vs Maidstone

[WREX777]

Originally Posted by BorrasRed

Dunn - 7
Roberts - 5.5
Pearson - 9.5 MOTM
Smith - 8
Jennings - 5
Kelly - 4.5
Wedgbury - 4.5
Deverdics - 4
Rutherford - 5
Quigley - 5
Holroyd - 5

Baffled by some of the high ratings on here. Other than a good spell in the first half, thought we were pretty poor going forward throughout with a pretty much non existent midfield who were constantly passing the ball sideways. Pearson carrying the team once again.

agree with these except thought kelly had a much better game than as mentioned

[Foxy]

Originally Posted by WREX777

agree with these except thought kelly had a much better game than as mentioned

Yes, Borras Red is being harsh on Kelly, otherwise his ratings are spot on.

[pagl]

Originally Posted by moynkeepthefaith

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

This again shows the marking system. A player gets a 5 for turning up and getting picked. So if he then played all game, didn't touch the ball and did nothing he would still be a 5?

[Foxy]

Originally Posted by pagl

This again shows the marking system. A player gets a 5 for turning up and getting picked. So if he then played all game, didn't touch the ball and did nothing he would still be a 5?

May as well have a 1-5 scoring system. My scores always range from 0-10 so if a player spends the whole match not doing anything at all (eg Boden, Deverdics) then they struggle to get past 3.

[Prodigal Dragon]

Originally Posted by Foxy

May as well have a 1-5 scoring system. My scores always range from 0-10 so if a player spends the whole match not doing anything at all (eg Boden, Deverdics) then they struggle to get past 3.

But how do you rate hardworking players who achieve very little ie Kelly and Rutherford?

[Foxy]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Dragon

But how do you rate hardworking players who achieve very little ie Kelly and Rutherford?

Usually 5-7. It’s almost impossible for them to achieve more than that. To be fair Rutherford has a lot of assists this season.

I think both these players are averaging 6 this season in the scientifically proven Foxy scoring mechanism. Essentially it’s hard to get promoted without players who regularly get 7 or more.

[Prodigal Dragon]

Originally Posted by Foxy

Usually 5-7. It’s almost impossible for them to achieve more than that. To be fair Rutherford has a lot of assists this season.

I think both these players are averaging 6 this season in the scientifically proven Foxy scoring mechanism. Essentially it’s hard to get promoted without players who regularly get 7 or more.

Agree. Rutherford in particular is an enigma: if he had more composure and scored that early chance we would have been home and dry. Kelly frustrates because he cannot unlock a defence and plays too many sideways passes. On Saturday, he gave the ball away far too often, hence why I gave him a (4) - below average - and Wedgbury a (5) - average - because his passing is normally pants but he breaks up play well.

I see no harm in giving scores below (5) if they ain’t pulling their weight. Alas, that happens far too often for my liking.

[moynkeepthefaith]

Originally Posted by pagl

This again shows the marking system. A player gets a 5 for turning up and getting picked. So if he then played all game, didn't touch the ball and did nothing he would still be a 5?

Pagl - I am sure you know what I mean ! What you describe would be very rare. My point is that if a player does what is required then for me he is a 5.

[Prodigal Dragon]

Originally Posted by moynkeepthefaith

Pagl - I am sure you know what I mean ! What you describe would be very rare. My point is that if a player does what is required then for me he is a 5.

Average! Does nothing too wrong but equally nothing too incisive either. But having too many average performances at once risks defeat, especially against the better teams. Ideally we need everyone play well (7) or better to be an effective threat.