Player Ratings v Cardiff (home)

[Acker79]

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?

To me, Marshall is almost single handedly responsible for Cardiff's point, his rating reflects that.

Gardner as in individual player wasted possession taking long range shots that were never going to test Marshall costing us opportunities to create better chances to score a winning goal from, and was part of a midfield that, while dominant, failed to show the creativity and cohesion to create chances that pushed Marshall (I know that sounds like a contradiction, Marshall's saves were good and he deserves credit for making them and the effect those saves had on his team's fortunes, at the same time only one of them really stuck out as a great save (low to his left to deny Bennett), the rest were either from distance giving him time to read where the shot is going and react, or were at such a height that he just had to dive).



Another point I forgot to mention in my post last night: It still feels like the team doesn't know each other. There were several occasions where it looked like there was confusion/lack of communication - the one that sticks in my mind now is a ball played across the box in the first half, it was clearly behind Lualua and heading toward the overlapping Bennett(?), instead of leaving it, Lualua stopped and back tracked to collect the ball, but then had his back to the goal and all momentum in that attack was lost. I don't mention those names to blame them individually, it was something that occurred over the course of the match with various players. A simple call, or a better understanding of each other is needed.

 

[Stat Brother]

With a third of last night team (JFC, Tex, Stockdale & CMS) still getting a kicking on here, 24 hours later.
How did we manage 'earn' a point with 60% possession, 25 shots etc, in a really exciting game.

 

[Machiavelli]

To me, Marshall is almost single handedly responsible for Cardiff's point, his rating reflects that.

Without wanting to flog a dead horse: doesn't this mean that he should be rated 11?
I disagree with your final point/paragraph too, and thought that we looked like a team that understood each other and Hyypia's system, and were really beginning to put that into practice. Of course, there were moments when communication didn't quite work, but there were far fewer than in the other games I've seen this season.

 

[Acker79]

Without wanting to flog a dead horse: doesn't this mean that he should be rated 11?
I disagree with your final point/paragraph too, and thought that we looked like a team that understood each other and Hyypia's system, and were really beginning to put that into practice. Of course, there were moments when communication didn't quite work, but there were far fewer than in the other games I've seen this season.

I mark out of ten. I get the whole 11/10 of ten hype, but don't go in for it myself. But I said at least 8.5. Possibly more, but I don't think I'd have given him ten because, as I mentioned earlier, the saves were good, but were often at a good height or from a good distance giving him time to react.

 

[Mellotron]

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.

It's not redundant, because I'm saying your scores would be different if our players performed exactly the same but Marshall (an opposition player) had perform differently.

 

[Mellotron]

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.

Exactly. We could've performed much, much, MUCH worse than we did and won.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I mark out of ten. I get the whole 11/10 of ten hype, but don't go in for it myself. But I said at least 8.5. Possibly more, but I don't think I'd have given him ten because, as I mentioned earlier, the saves were good, but were often at a good height or from a good distance giving him time to react.

From the NSC match report: http://www.northstandchat.com/content.php?279-Albion-v-Cardiff-City-30-09-2014

They say that if you can't be good, be lucky. Marshall was both - he was sensational in this game, and deserved any luck that came his way, but some luck he did have. Both Dunk's header and Gardner's drive were pushed back into very dangerous areas, but to his relief, away from the feet of anyone in blue.

 

[Machiavelli]

I mark out of ten. I get the whole 11/10 of ten hype, but don't go in for it myself. But I said at least 8.5. Possibly more, but I don't think I'd have given him ten because, as I mentioned earlier, the saves were good, but were often at a good height or from a good distance giving him time to react.

There is a hint of naughtiness to the 11 suggestion and it's difficult to argue with your reasoning. But let's stick to marking out of ten. What warrants a ten performance? I'm not so sure I've seen them too often on here (your collation of stats might indicate how frequently it has been granted). Is it the case that, because the players are playing in the Championship -- and not the PL or CL -- they simply don't warrant it? Should they be granted, but only extremely rarely, say, one or two a season? And so on.
I gave Bennett 9.5 for his performance on Tuesday, for several reasons, one of which was that that was better than anything that Bridge or Ward pulled out. And their standards were high.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

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

Agree with those, with the exception that I'd give CMS a 5.5, I thought he ran the channels well but his hold up play was poor, the first touch of a trampoline.

 

[Acker79]

It's not redundant, because I'm saying your scores would be different if our players performed exactly the same but Marshall (an opposition player) had perform differently.

Well, to be blunt, it either is redundant or it's incredibly stupid:

Either

There is an implication in your hypothetical situation that Marshall's different performance results in a win for us. If he doesn't make those saves Bennett is a hat-trick hero and this thread is full of 10s and 11s for him. Stockdale's win-costing error becomes a simple mistake that cost us nothing more than a clean sheet as we steamrollered Cardiff he gets 7s and 8s. Gardner's long range shots go from wasted possession costing us a chance to get a winning goal to 'we're so rampant everyone's shooting on sight' and he gets 8s and 9s; and so on. Everyone would be marking higher, either because of the context changing value of the performance, the feel good factor of a win, or simply because they mark wins higher.

Or

You are bizarrely suggesting that Marshall putting in a different performance would result in either the same result or a worse one and that I would then rate our players higher in that situation. That simply is so counter intuitive you would have to be stupid to be making that point.

 

[Acker79]

There is a hint of naughtiness to the 11 suggestion and it's difficult to argue with your reasoning. But let's stick to marking out of ten. What warrants a ten performance? I'm not so sure I've seen them too often on here (your collation of stats might indicate how frequently it has been granted). Is it the case that, because the players are playing in the Championship -- and not the PL or CL -- they simply don't warrant it? Should they be granted, but only extremely rarely, say, one or two a season? And so on.
I gave Bennett 9.5 for his performance on Tuesday, for several reasons, one of which was that that was better than anything that Bridge or Ward pulled out. And their standards were high.

No one has ever averaged a 10, but that isn't really surprising. It would need everyone who responds to vote 10.

But a lot of people have given 10s in the past, and 11s, and I believe someone once gave someone a rating of 1,000,000 (my policy with the record is always to record them as ten, and any less than 0 as 0).

The highest average last season was 9.06 for Ulloa v Burnley (he got a couple of tens in here).

The highest the season before was Kuszczak v Cardiff 9.65 he got a fair few tens (here).


I personally don't remember giving a 10. I have only rarely given a 9, I don't know why. I haven't set out not to give generous markings, or deliberately decided to be stingy, but I apparently am (and not just with this thread, I was questioned about my lack of 8s and 9s at one point last season, even though I'd given plenty of 8s).

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No one has ever averaged a 10, but that isn't really surprising. It would need everyone who responds to vote 10.

But a lot of people have given 10s in the past, and 11s, and I believe someone once gave someone a rating of 1,000,000 (my policy with the record is always to record them as ten, and any less than 0 as 0).

The highest average last season was 9.06 for Ulloa v Burnley (he got a couple of tens in here).

The highest the season before was Kuszczak v Cardiff 9.65 he got a fair few tens (here).


I personally don't remember giving a 10. I have only rarely given a 9, I don't know why I haven't set out not to give generous markings, or deliberately decided to be stingy, but I apparently am (and not just with this thread, I was questioned about my lack of 8s and 9s at one point last season, even though I'd given plenty of 8s).

Funnily enough Kuszczak getting 10s against Cardiff was because he had a game like Marshall where he saved everything including a couple of blinders.

 

[Weststander]

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.

Bennett - taking nothing away from him, but Bridge in most games I saw was a 9 or a 10 IMO - very good defensively rarely making an error, but immense going forward with great decision making in attack and still with blinding pace. The best LB I've seen play for the Albion. If Bennett matches that consistently, that's great news for us this season.

 

[Acker79]

Any more ratings?

 

[Acker79]

Average Ratings

Highest Rated:
Bennett 7.99 (97mins, 38 votes)

The Rest:
Greer 6.99 (97mins, 38 votes)
Gardner 6.95 (97mins, 38 votes)
Bruno 6.72 (97mins, 38 votes)
LuaLua 6.71 (97mins, 38 votes)
Holla 6.49 (97mins, 38 votes)
Forster-Caskey 6.45 (97mins, 38 votes)
>McCourt 6.24 (15mins, 19 votes)
>O'Grady 6.23 (37mins, 30 votes)
<Teixeira 6.04 (82mins, 38 votes)
Dunk 5.86 (97mins, 38 votes)
<Mackail-Smith 4.88 (60mins, 38 votes)
Stockdale 4.72 (97mins, 38 votes)


Squad average: 6.33