Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Gillingham v Charlton - Player Ratings

edited October 2009 in General Charlton
Be grateful if those at the game could copy and paste the bit below (in that order please) and give your ratings out of ten (half marks allowed):

Elliot -
Richardson -
Dailly -
Sodje -
Youga -
Sam -
Racon -
Bailey -
Burton -
McLeod -
Semedo -
Basey -


Very hard game to mark fairly IMO
«1

Comments

  • Elliot - 9
    Richardson - 7
    Dailly - 7
    Sodje - 9
    Youga - 8
    Sam - 7
    Racon - 6
    Bailey - 6
    Burton - 6
    McLeod - 6
    Semedo - 7
    Basey - 8
  • Elliot - 9
    Richardson - 6
    Dailly - 6
    Sodje -8
    Youga -7
    Sam -7
    Racon -6
    Bailey -6
    Burton -5
    McLeod -6
    Semedo -7
    Basey -7
  • Elliot - 8.5
    Richardson -7
    Dailly -7
    Sodje -7.5
    Youga -7.5
    Sam -7
    Racon -7
    Bailey -6
    Burton -6
    McLeod -5
    Semedo - 7
    Basey -7.5
  • edited October 2009
    Elliot 9 MOM kept us in it. Would have lost without him

    Richardson 6 usual sound performance until his injury

    Dailly 7 did what was required possibly culpable for Jackson's goal though

    Sodje 7 as Dailly

    Youga 8 the one outfield Charlton player who appeared up for it (until Basey came on anyway)

    Sam 6 poor by his standards. Perhaps the injury has caught up with him

    Racon 6 Nothing particularly good or bad but not as influential as normal

    Bailey 6 nearly got on the end of a cross in the 2nd half but otherwise below his usual par

    Burton 6 Can't fault his effort but totally ineffective today

    McLeod 6 Doesn't hide but an appalling attempt for his one real chance

    Semedo 6 As Racon

    Basey 7 looked up for it and effective coming forward. Perhaps fortunate that Fuller appears as slow as he is!
  • There's some quite high marks being recorded in what was not a very good performance . Sorry, but I'm going to be a bit meaner: -

    Elliot - 8
    Richardson - 6
    Dailly - 7
    Sodje - 8
    Youga - 6
    Sam - 5
    Racon - 6
    Bailey - 5
    Burton - 5
    McLeod - 6
    Semedo - 6
    Basey - 7
  • Elliot - 8
    Richardson - 6
    Dailly - 7
    Sodje - 7.5
    Youga - 7
    Sam - 6
    Racon - 6
    Bailey - 6
    Burton - 6
    McLeod - 6
    Semedo - 8
    Basey - 7
  • Elliot - 8
    Richardson -6
    Dailly -7
    Sodje -7
    Youga -7
    Sam -6
    Racon -6
    Bailey -6
    Burton -5
    McLeod -6
    Semedo - 7
    Basey - 5
  • Elliot - 7.5
    Richardson - 6.5
    Dailly - 6
    Sodje - 7.5
    Youga - 6.5
    Sam - 7
    Racon - 7
    Bailey - 6
    Burton - 4
    McLeod - 6
    Semedo - 6.5
    Basey - 6.5
  • Elliot -7
    Richardson -6
    Dailly -6
    Sodje -6.5
    Youga -7
    Sam -5
    Racon -5
    Bailey -5.5
    Burton -5
    McLeod -5
    Semedo - 5.5
    Basey - 5.5
  • Elliot - 7 Did what he had to do well. One great save and commanded his area well.
    Richardson -6 A couple of forraging runs, a couple of unforced errors. Presumably went off injured
    Dailly -6.5 Calm and collected, but was a bit caught out for the goal
    Sodje -7.5 Inspirational, first to every ball
    Youga -7 Less attacking detail this week, but had another effective game
    Sam -6 A few decent crosses, but another quiet game for Lloydy
    Racon -6 We really struggle when he's not on top form - and he wasn't on top form.
    Bailey -6.5 Aside from some terrible dead balls a typically forthwright performance
    Burton -4 Can't think of him winning anything against a mean defence. Fluffed a good chance near the end. Due a break
    McLeod -6 Tried hard, created one decent chance for himself, but fluffed it.
    Semedo - 7 As a Spring supporter I wasn't clamouring for him to be back, but showed his quality today.
    Basey - 6 Looked OK when he came on
    Mooney 6.5 - The answer to the Deon problem? Looked strong and worked hard to get a cross in.
    Waggy SV
    Parky 6 - Will he ever switch a wining lineup, if the conditions demand it?
  • Sponsored links:


  • Elliot - 7
    Richardson - 6
    Dailly - 6
    Sodje - 7
    Youga - 7
    Sam - 6
    Racon - 6
    Bailey - 5
    Burton - 6
    McLeod - 7
    Semedo - 6
    Basey - 5.5
    Mooney - 5.5
  • At least half the team were below average so can't give many over 5.5.

    Elliot - 7
    Richardson - 5
    Dailly - 6
    Sodje - 6
    Youga - 5
    Sam - 4
    Racon - 4
    Bailey - 4
    Burton - 3.5
    McLeod - 3.5
    Semedo - 5
    Basey - 6
  • Elliot - 8
    Richardson - 5
    Dailly - 6
    Sodje - 7
    Youga - 7
    Sam - 6
    Racon - 7
    Bailey - 6
    Burton - 5
    McLeod - 5
    Semedo - 6
    Basey - 6
  • Elliot - 8
    Richardson - 5
    Dailly - 5
    Sodje - 6
    Youga -6
    Sam - 5
    Racon - 6
    Bailey - 5
    Burton - 5
    McLeod - 5
    Semedo - 6
    Basey - 6
  • Elliot - 7.5
    Richardson - 6
    Dailly - 6.5
    Sodje - 7.5
    Youga - 7
    Sam - 5.5
    Racon - 6
    Bailey - 6
    Burton - 4
    McLeod - 6
    Semedo - 6
    Basey - 6.5
  • Elliot - 8.5
    Richardson - 7
    Dailly - 7
    Sodje - 7
    Youga - 7
    Sam - 6
    Racon - 6
    Bailey - 6
    Burton - 6
    McLeod - 6
    Semedo - 6
    Basey - 7
  • edited October 2009
    Elliot - 8
    Richardson - 7
    Dailly - 7
    Sodje - 8
    Youga - 8
    Sam - 4
    Racon - 4
    Bailey - 4
    Burton - 4
    McLeod - 4
    Semedo - 7

    Basey - 8

    Parky 4 - hasn't really got a clue.
  • Have never commented on others marks before, but there are a couple on here that have really left me shaking my head.

    Not every game is a nice, free-flowing affair. Sometimes it is a battle and teams cancel each other out, particularly when the wind is up and a pitch isn't good. It is a real leveller and the leveller is normally at the lowest point. Saturday was a huge potential banana skin, that given how things were i was happy to come away with a point from. We didn't play great in any way, but we done what we had to do to come away with something.

    Dread to think what some of the marks would have been had we lost.
  • [cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]Have never commented on others marks before, but there are a couple on here that have really left me shaking my head.

    Not every game is a nice, free-flowing affair. Sometimes it is a battle and teams cancel each other out, particularly when the wind is up and a pitch isn't good. It is a real leveller and the leveller is normally at the lowest point. Saturday was a huge potential banana skin, that given how things were i was happy to come away with a point from. We didn't play great in any way, but we done what we had to do to come away with something.

    Dread to think what some of the marks would have been had we lost.

    I am one of those who has marked players poorly. I don't see the point in doing the ratings unless it's going to be an accurate reflection of the performances of the players. I thought most of our midfield and strikers were below average, therefore had to get less than 5.5/10. Just because they battled hard and ground out the result doesn't mean they played well.
  • [cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]Have never commented on others marks before, but there are a couple on here that have really left me shaking my head.
    Dread to think what some of the marks would have been had we lost.
    this is what I was thinking I mean 3.5s and 4s for a draw where official ratings were 5s and 6s at lowest??
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited October 2009
    Have to agree with Dabos here.

    In the light of your comment, AFKA, I took a quick look at your ratings. You gave every defender 7 and every midfielder/attacker 6. Such eveness in our play definitely wasn't the game I saw. Poor conditions, yes. But some adapted to them better than others and that surely should be reflected in the marking?

    But it only goes to prove what we knew all along : that we all look at these things quite differently and there is no objective scientific benchmark. Which, of course, is how it should be and is why we do this exercise and why you then aggregate and average out everone's marks to create the statbank !

    Well done, though. Must be a lot of work and it's always fascinating to read the disitlled collective wisdom of Lifers when you've finished all your number crunching.
  • Elliot -8
    Richardson -5.5
    Dailly -7
    Sodje -7
    Youga -7
    Sam -5.5
    Racon -6.5
    Bailey -6
    Burton -6
    McLeod -5.5
    Semedo - 6.5
    Basey - 5.5
  • edited October 2009
    [cite]Posted By: Dazzler21[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]Have never commented on others marks before, but there are a couple on here that have really left me shaking my head.
    Dread to think what some of the marks would have been had we lost.
    this is what I was thinking I mean 3.5s and 4s for a draw where official ratings were 5s and 6s at lowest??

    No such thing as an "official rating" - only my ratings are correct ;-)

    The point I'm making is there isn't a direct link between player ratings and outcome of the game - it's possible to play terribly and win a game, and play really well and lose. My ratings were low even though we got a draw; I would've given the same ratings even if they hadn't got their equaliser or had they gone on to get a winner.
  • [cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]Parky 4 - hasn't really got a clue.
    [cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]Parky 6 - Will he ever switch a wining lineup, if the conditions demand it?

    Surely you have to start with the winning formation then change if things don't happen and a 4 for parky was a bit harsh.
  • [cite]Posted By: creepyaddick[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]Parky 4 - hasn't really got a clue.
    [cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]Parky 6 - Will he ever switch a wining lineup, if the conditions demand it?

    Surely you have to start with the winning formation then change if things don't happen and a 4 for parky was a bit harsh.
    Do wonder if he had changed the team and drawn 1-1 they'd be saying "you shouldn't change a winning team". I do get the feeling he'll be critisized whatever choice he makes.
  • [cite]Posted By: creepyaddick[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]Parky 4 - hasn't really got a clue.
    [cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]Parky 6 - Will he ever switch a wining lineup, if the conditions demand it?

    Surely you have to start with the winning formation then change if things don't happen and a 4 for parky was a bit harsh.

    we havn't had a winning formula away from home since the end of August so he hardly started with a winning one did he ?

    McLeod, although working hard, was having a mare so Mooney should have had longer. Sam was out of sorts, Waggy should have come on earlier. Racon and Bailey especially need a boot up their arse, they are a lot better than they are currently showing and that isn't based on just this game but a previous few others too.
  • [cite]Posted By: Scoham[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: creepyaddick[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]Parky 4 - hasn't really got a clue.
    [cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]Parky 6 - Will he ever switch a wining lineup, if the conditions demand it?

    Surely you have to start with the winning formation then change if things don't happen and a 4 for parky was a bit harsh.
    Do wonder if he had changed the team and drawn 1-1 they'd be saying "you shouldn't change a winning team". I do get the feeling he'll be critisized whatever choice he makes.

    In my view criticising Parky is a bit harsh because to no small extent his hand was forced because of the injury to Richardson.

    I reckon Jonjo would have come on for the last half hour had Richardson been able to continue. As it was Youga had to play on his "wrong" side which also meant Sam had to be more mindful of defensive duties given that Barcham is arguably their most dangerous player after Jackson.

    Imagine the flak had Parky changed it earlier and we lost!!
  • Home or away, a winning formation is the same.Agree re:Sam, thought Wagstaff deserved a start this week, and definately Bailey and Racon need a kick up the arse!
    Defence looked pretty much altogether apart from that one time but conditions were bad (wind & grass) so can't put too much on Parky's shoulders.
  • [cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: creepyaddick[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]Parky 4 - hasn't really got a clue.
    [cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]Parky 6 - Will he ever switch a wining lineup, if the conditions demand it?

    Surely you have to start with the winning formation then change if things don't happen and a 4 for parky was a bit harsh.

    we havn't had a winning formula away from home since the end of August so he hardly started with a winning one did he ?
    he said formation not formula stop finding bull reasons to criticise we went 5 matches with only one win so when we edged another he stayed with a team that had won rather than demoralise by changing it!
  • As a noted pedant, shouldn't all this be in the post-match views thread rather than the players ratings thread?

    All that AFKA's fault. The bloke's clearly a disruptive anarchist. Admin should have a word with him...;o)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!