Player Ratings v Cardiff (home)

[Withdean11]

Stockdale - 5
Bruno -7
Greer -7
Dunk -6
Bennett -8
Holla -7
JFC -7.5
Teixeira -7
Gardner - 8
LuaLua -7
CMS - 6

O'Grady - 6
McCourt -6.5

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Did anyone else think we should have had a penalty before Bruno's goal? Thought one of their defenders handled the ball in the goalmouth.

There was a massive shout for handball from the north stand and it certainly looked like it.

 

[aolstudios]

Whilst I agree it was our best performance and [MENTION=12595]Acker79[/MENTION] was being incredibly harsh, I don't think it was Marshal who cost us the game. Most of his saves were straight at him and I would expect most keepers to save them. Only once did I think he made a great save (From Bennett's shot. that he tipped around the post). It just seems that we have not got a goal scorer. If we had Ulloa last night we would of won. Great performance though, first 20 minutes was the best I've seen us since Gus.

pretty much spot on

 

[Silk]

There was a massive shout for handball from the north stand and it certainly looked like it.

Couldn't see any mention in commentary or match report so wondered if it was just me!

 

[The Wizard]

Stockdale - 5: good with the ball at his feet but fairly flappy on crosses, made an important save in the second half after Dunks disaster.

Bruno - 7: solid game all round, scares the hell out of me when he faffs about near our one penalty area.
Greer - 6.5: Cardiff offered nothing really but Greer did fairly well.
Dunk - 5.5: Error strewn game but played a couple of decent forward balls.
Bennett - 8: Deserved MOM, great going forward and solid defensively

Holla - 6.5: Retains possession well but will go unnoticed by many, like Bridcutt did to begin with.
Gardner - 6: Tidy, that's about it.
JFC - 7: I don't know what some people watch.. He skied a very difficult attempt in the second half but he was our best midfielder yesterday, very solid in all aspects and played some lovely passes. Bizzare some appear to have an issue with him

Kaz - 7: Retained possession very well and looked a real threat, did well for most of 90 minutes for once too!
Tex - 6: Moments of pure quality but other poor moments, difficult to rate.
CMS - 5: Five for effort and keeping them occupied but he makes poor runs and never seems to be on the end of the chances we create.

McCourt - Not long enough to rate but looked his normally creative self, extremely good with the ball at his feet. Would like to see him start
O'Grady - again, putting aside preconceptions he actually did well when he came on, made more intelligent runs than CMS.

 

[Machiavelli]

I haven't had time to trawl through here, but I did notice some very low ratings from Acker: I'm going to be far more generous.

Stockdale 5 -- one howler, but everything else he does is excellent, including a Marshall-esque save. The big question is: how much should he be marked down for his howler (for me, it takes him from an 8 to a 5)
Bruno 7 -- flair
Greer 6 -- good again
Dunk 6 -- excellent again, apart from one awful howler, which takes him from an 8 to a 6
Bennett 9.5 -- I'm wondering if either Bridge or Ward put in a performance like that, and don't think they did
Holla 7.5 -- kept things ticking over
Gardner 9 -- all of a sudden I like Villa loanees
JFC 7 -- one of his best games, though his shooting wasn't up to much last night
Tex 5 -- fab first 20 minutes, over-elaborate second half
CMS 5 -- ran around a lot, poor first touch
KLL 6.5 -- another solid performance in his third consecutive start, there's been a noticeable improvement in his understanding of the game

O'Grady 6 -- did OK
McCourt 7.5

Marshall -- do ratings go up to 11?

Sami 8 -- this was a cracking performance, let down by a couple of howlers, some poor finishing and utterly inspired goalkeeping (sound familiar?). You could really understand the system he keeps talking about last night, especially how he wants the midfield players playing and why he selects the more 'technical' players (JFC, Gardner) over the more 'dynamic' ones in there.
Let's be honest, we tore apart a team that were in the PL last year, and haven't had major surgery in the close season. If we get near that level for the rest of the season, it should all go swimmingly well.

 

[Acker79]

Incredibly harsh IMO. If it weren't for Marshall we would've won 4-1 and your scores would be higher. Best performance of the season that I've seen.

What a redundant thing to say. Yes, of course my ratings would be higher if we'd won. So would yours. So would everyone's.

We rate the players by how they affect the game. A performance in one game that wins it will be higher than the same performance in another game that doesn't win the game as it will be seen as less effective.

Or, using last night as an example, Gardner needlessly taking long range shots that go off target isn't as detrimental to us if we're 4-1 up as it was last night when we were 1-1 and needing to keep possession and work opportunities that have a greater chance of going in.

My complaints aren't that we didn't win. My complaints are all these issues that have been ongoing, that appear to have not been improved - the wrong decisions players make, CMS's terrible control. These are flaws that I feel have been masked by a decent goal keeping performance from Marshall.

 

[big nuts]

What a redundant thing to say. Yes, of course my ratings would be higher if we'd won. So would yours. So would everyone's.

We rate the players by how they affect the game. A performance in one game that wins it will be higher than the same performance in another game that doesn't win the game as it will be seen as less effective.

Or, using last night as an example, Gardner needlessly taking long range shots that go off target isn't as detrimental to us if we're 4-1 up as it was last night when we were 1-1 and needing to keep possession and work opportunities that have a greater chance of going in.

My complaints aren't that we didn't win. My complaints are all these issues that have been ongoing, that appear to have not been improved - the wrong decisions players make, CMS's terrible control. These are flaws that I feel have been masked by a decent goal keeping performance from Marshall.

I disagree player ratings are based on individual performances not team results.

It's quite plausible to have 11 players rating at an average of above 7 even in defeat if the team have perform well. In contrast an undeserved scrappy 1-0 win with sub standard performances all round may yield an average score of below 6's across the team.

 

[Skaville]

Stockdale - 5 - very good except for a game changing blunder
Bruno -7 - got forward really well. Not sure he meant the goal, sometimes wasteful in possession
Greer -7 - great aggressive/commanding performance
Dunk -6 - sloppy mistake
Bennett - 8 - really impressive going forward. No defensive duties so at his best
Holla - 6 - the least influential I have seen him
JFC -7 - improving with every game
Teixeira -6 - seemed to want too much time on the ball
Gardner - 7 - impressive
LuaLua - 6 - still plays too much like an individual for me
CMS - 5 - sweet Jesus he needs a goal

O'Grady - 7 - made the runs that a hiding CMS didn't
McCourt - 6 - not long enough to make an impression

 

[Acker79]

I disagree player ratings are based on individual performances not team results.

It's quite plausible to have 11 players rating at an average of above 7 even in defeat if the team have perform well. In contrast an undeserved scrappy 1-0 win with sub standard performances all round may yield an average score of below 6's across the team.

That isn't entirely contradicting me.

My point is an extension of what you say, yes we rate the players, not the result.

But their performances are often framed by or given context by the result. We will tolerate more wasteful play in a win because as an individual performance it isn't as costly as it would be if we're trying to get a winning goal. A moment of brilliance that wins a tight game could be seen as meaningless if it's a late consolation in a complete drubbing.

 

[Skaville]

What a redundant thing to say. Yes, of course my ratings would be higher if we'd won. So would yours. So would everyone's.

We rate the players by how they affect the game. A performance in one game that wins it will be higher than the same performance in another game that doesn't win the game as it will be seen as less effective.

Or, using last night as an example, Gardner needlessly taking long range shots that go off target isn't as detrimental to us if we're 4-1 up as it was last night when we were 1-1 and needing to keep possession and work opportunities that have a greater chance of going in.

My complaints aren't that we didn't win. My complaints are all these issues that have been ongoing, that appear to have not been improved - the wrong decisions players make, CMS's terrible control. These are flaws that I feel have been masked by a decent goal keeping performance from Marshall.

Just out of interest, what rating would you give Marshall who also performed in a side that didn't win?

 

[Acker79]

Just out of interest, what rating would you give Marshall who also performed in a side that didn't win?

Probably at least an 8.5. Several of the shots were at a good height for him, but he still had to react, I don't think he could have done much about the goal they conceded, and while they didn't win his saves did contribute to their point in a big way.

 

[Machiavelli]

Probably at least an 8.5. Several of the shots were at a good height for him, but he still had to react, I don't think he could have done much about the goal they conceded, and while they didn't win his saves did contribute to their point in a big way.

My question was are we allowed to award 11 to Marshall?

 

[Skaville]

Probably at least an 8.5. Several of the shots were at a good height for him, but he still had to react, I don't think he could have done much about the goal they conceded, and while they didn't win his saves did contribute to their point in a big way.

Yet Gardner, who played in a midfield that dominated possession and forced Marshall into two of those saves that massively contributed to their point gets a 5? Surely this is just a load of attention seeking fishing?

 

[Barnham Seagull]

There keeper was good but he had a chance with all of them, how often did we put it in one the top corners etc

Some great play last night but let down again by quality in the box.

Teams who don't score go down however well the general play maybe.

 

[BensGrandad]

Stockdale 4 Any good is over shadowed by his big mistake.
Bruno 7 Good all round effort with the addition of the goal.
Greer 7 Is Mr Reliable this season.
Dunk 6 1 bad header back to DS but generally good against the best outfield player on their side.
Bennett 8 Superb MOM
Holla 6 Steady performance
Gardner 7 Good all round performance
JFC 6 Seems to be getting used to this division but dead ball kicks awful
Lua Lua 7 Caused problems but needs to look up more often to see what he is going to do and where he is going.
Teixeira 6 Good first half but tired by 60th min.
CMS 7 Ran their defence ragged and against a lesser keeper would have scored a couple.

Subs:
COG 6 Tried hard and held the ball up but then did nothing with it.
McCourt 6 Promising but not on long enough to influence the game.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Stockdale - 5 - Utter howler, but faultless apart from that including one great save
Bruno -7 - lovely goal & solid.
Greer -7- did well marking Jones
Dunk -6- Hard game against Jones, but one back-header aside was good
Bennett -8.5- MOTM. Gets better every game
Holla -6 - Didn't notice him, but he's not there to be noticed
JFC -7- Doesn't lose the ball, tidy in possession, & got stuck in
Tex -6.5- Excellent in the first half, ran out of steam in the second
Gardner -8 - Second to Bennett for MOTM.
Kaz -7 - Thought he played well all game
CMS -4- Rubbish as usual. I loved that bit of control when the ball came over his head & pinged off 20 metres away. COG was better

O'grady - 6- An improvement on CMS
Paddy -6- Didn't have enough time again - give him half an hour at least

I would like to be associated with these ratings.

 

[Marshy]

JFC dead balls last night were generally decent, it was Holla who put in a couple of poor ones last night

 

[Box of Frogs]

While it was Stockdale's error and fault I still think a better (and possibly more experienced centre-back) would have dealt with it

What he said.

 

[Box of Frogs]

Stockdale - 5 - Utter howler, but faultless apart from that including one great save
Bruno -7 - lovely goal & solid.
Greer -7- did well marking Jones
Dunk -6- Hard game against Jones, but one back-header aside was good
Bennett -8.5- MOTM. Gets better every game
Holla -6 - Didn't notice him, but he's not there to be noticed
JFC -7- Doesn't lose the ball, tidy in possession, & got stuck in
Tex -6.5- Excellent in the first half, ran out of steam in the second
Gardner -8 - Second to Bennett for MOTM.
Kaz -7 - Thought he played well all game
CMS -4- Rubbish as usual. I loved that bit of control when the ball came over his head & pinged off 20 metres away. COG was better

O'grady - 6- An improvement on CMS
Paddy -6- Didn't have enough time again - give him half an hour at least

Can't ague with most of this but particularly agree with those highlighted.