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

STATBANK - Charlton 1-3 Exeter

lancashire ladlancashire lad
edited February 2011 in General Charlton
The player averages and the highest and lowest individual marks from the 64 Lifers who gave their marks are as follows:

Jenkinson - 6.45-------highest 8----- lowest 4
Eccleston - 6.24-----------------8--------------4.5
Abbott - 6.17--------------------8------------4
Semedo - 5.99-------------------7.5------------3
Wright Phillips - 5.85-----------7--------------4.5
Dailly - 5.57----------------------7--------------3
Jackson - 5.18--------------------7--------------3
Fry - 5.03-------------------------7--------------3
Elliot - 4.77----------------------6.5------------3
McCormack - 4.18--------------- 7--------------1
Doherty - 3.97--------------------6--------------1

Team - 5.40----------------------6.36-----------4.45

Sometimes the highest and lowest marks are down to one or two Lifers, but this time no one or two people were responsible for extreme marking.

So far this season in League One the averages for players with at least 30 minutes in a match:

Anyinsah - 6.97 - 10 games
Wright Phillips - 6.74 - 5 straight in at number two
Dailly - 6.67 - 20
Racon - 6.57 - 23
Elliot - 6.52 - 25
Semedo - 6.49 - 27
Jackson - 6.34 - 28
Doherty - 6.25 - 28
Abbott - 6.23 - 14
Wagstaff - 6.22 - 24
Benson - 6.19 - 18
Fry - 6.10 - 19
Reid - 6.05 - 14
Francis - 5.95 - 25
McCormack - 5.91 - 15
Llera - 5.90 - 5
Fortune - 5.69 - 7

Team - 6.30 - 29

The following players have been responsible for conceding penalties in League One:
Doherty 1
Racon 1
Francis 1
Llera 1
Elliot 1

In the last 10 league games this is the first time we have had over 50% possession with 53%.

Comments

  • Options
    se9addickse9addick
    Someone gave Jenkinson a 4 ?
  • Options
    AFKABartramAFKABartram
    [cite]Posted By: lancashire lad[/cite]

    McCormack - 4.18
    7
    1
    Doherty - 3.97
    6
    1

    Team - 5.40
    6.36
    4.45

    Sometimes the highest and lowest marks are down to one or two Lifers, but this time no one or two people were responsible for extreme marking.

    Then i see little point with doing it to be honest if we're going to start including people who give shock marks following a defeat, as the number of people voting in such fashion seems to be growing.

    If anyone seriously feels that any players performance was a 1/10 then they either know nothing about football whatsoever, or are simply looking for a reaction.
  • Options
    SaladSalad
    perhaps discount the best two and worst two marks for each player when calculating the average - with an even spread it won't make any difference but it will help to avoid outliers when one or two people give such stupid marks
  • Options
    JTJT
    1 is ridiculous
  • Options
    stonemusestonemuse
    [cite]Posted By: JT[/cite]1 is ridiculous

    yup
  • Options
    ValleyFredValleyFred
    Yeh, I agree 1 is ridiculous. The only way I could consider giving a one would be if the player scored a hat-trick of own goals, gave away four penalties, blocked a goal for his own team and then got sent off.
  • Options
    incorruptible addickincorruptible addick
    edited February 2011
    But surely the end result is an accuratate reflection of the match (and the performances), with everyone averaging between 6.5 and 4 ?

    That's the point of a large sample - over 64 votes, all of the silly extremities in either direction are smoothed out and wil usually produce a pretty rational average.
  • Options
    dabosdabos
    1 out of 10 is no more extreme than 9 out of 10 (assuming that giving 0 out of 10 is allowed).

    I do agree that marks are often unfairly connected to the result though, which shouldn't be the case. I remember last season someone commented on my scores after the Millwall home game "I can't imagine what your marks would've been had we lost" - they would've been exactly the same.
  • Options
    PL54PL54
    [cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: lancashire lad[/cite]

    McCormack - 4.18
    7
    1
    Doherty - 3.97
    6
    1

    Team - 5.40
    6.36
    4.45

    Sometimes the highest and lowest marks are down to one or two Lifers, but this time no one or two people were responsible for extreme marking.

    Then i see little point with doing it to be honest if we're going to start including people who give shock marks following a defeat, as the number of people voting in such fashion seems to be growing.

    If anyone seriously feels that any players performance was a 1/10 then they either know nothing about football whatsoever, or are simply looking for a reaction.


    You should ban people who don't vote the way you do.
  • Options
    AFKABartramAFKABartram
    yep, that's exactly what i'm saying. Well read
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    Henry IrvingHenry Irving
    it's not meant to be a reflection of the game though it's meant to be a reflection of the individual performances.
  • Options
    incorruptible addickincorruptible addick
    edited February 2011
    [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]it's not meant to be a reflection of the game though it's meant to be a reflection of the individual performances.

    And thankfully it is, isn't it? Nobody really stood out as much more than a 6.5 . And the unfortunate and costly errors of Elliott and Doherty reduced them to around four/five-ish. Just my opinion, of course - but one that seems to be reflected in the average votes of 63 others.
  • Options
    SwisdomSwisdom
    [cite]Posted By: JT[/cite]1 is ridiculous

    One is not amused
  • Options
    redmanredman
    An average of 5.40. Do you have to hand averages for recent games. I would be interested to see a list of the averages by game for this season if that is easily do-able.
    I know possesion can often be misleading but the fact we had over 50% for the first time in 10 games shows something. Personally I dont think it was that much worse than some of our other recent games but before people say it i'm in a minority. We've ridden our luck in some games and this was a game that balanced it out.
    Having said that some of the extremes are ridiculous and i find the 8's almost as ridiculous as the 1's for this game. But hopefully I will be giving lots of 8's for the next few games!
  • Options
    dabosdabos
    [cite]Posted By: redman[/cite]I know possesion can often be misleading but the fact we had over 50% for the first time in 10 games shows something. Personally I dont think it was that much worse than some of our other recent games but before people say it i'm in a minority. We've ridden our luck in some games and this was a game that balanced it out.

    I think the possession stat on its own can be very misleading (as you say). Without knowing what areas of the pitch this possession is in makes it difficult to get a full picture.

    Certainly agree that this was not much worse than other performances, bar a couple of individuals.
  • Options
    lancashire ladlancashire lad
    I would like to come back on some of the remarks concerning these statistics which mainly centre around the giving of very low or high marks for an individual player:

    Chizz - yes you did give Elliot a 1, I did include it in the main stats but accidentally missed it out showing the highest and lowest - my apologies.

    1 is the lowest number - a few of you seem to feel that 1 is "ridiculous", sorry but I disagree. Whatever mark a Lifer puts it is their perception of that player in that game and is as valid as any other number between 0-10 and I shall continue to include such numbers as I don't believe in censorship. IA is correct in that the averages will usually even out the more extreme marking, the only time this will not happen is when the sample is very small.

    Redman - I will put up a stat on the season's match averages after the Notts County game

    For the Notts County game I will request those that watched on TV or other visual media to submit their marks and I will ask them to state by what means they watched the game as I'm interested in producing a comparison between those at the game and those in the comfort of their home/pub/desk etc.

    I appreciate all comments on the stats and hope that they will continue, whatever their shade of opinion, but if those that run this site do not wish me to compile the stats in this open and honest way then it is up to them to say so and replace me with a red pen wielding Lifer
  • Options
    SECAFCSECAFC
    how can jenkinson of got a 4 he was best charlton player out there?
  • Options
    MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    If Jenkinson was Francis he would have got more 4s for the same performance. He was solid but nothing special going forwards and I think we missed Francis on Saturday - I didn't give him a 4 BTW. It could be argued that Elliot cost us the game and then a 1 is probably fair- a keeper has more opportunity to win games for the team and gain a high mark and lose them for a low mark.
  • Options
    oohaahmortimeroohaahmortimer
    edited February 2011
    I agree with lancashire keeping these low ones in , the over/under markings all have to be put in
    We all have a different view on certain things

    And we all know I'm right but its good just to see how wrong some of you are

    Sterling work lanccy lanccy lanccy lanccy lancashire and please keep it up
    It is appreciated from this statto freak
  • Options
    oohaahmortimeroohaahmortimer
    edited February 2011
    And agree with the above comment if francis had produced the same performance as jenkinson he would have been marked a lot lower as would worner if he'd put that performance in in goal
    and if anyinsah had done abbotts shift his marks would have been higher
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    LenGloverLenGlover
    I like to think that normally my marks are around the average but I think I was on the high side this week although ALL my marks were between 5 and 7. Hardly extreme either way.

    I agree with LL and would only consider "censoring" obviously diverse marks from people with a blatant ongoing hatred of a given player. We can all name the player (s) and poster (s) concerned.
  • Options
    StoneStone
    [cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]I like to think that normally my marks are around the average but I think I was on the high side this week although ALL my marks were between 5 and 7. Hardly extreme either way.

    I agree with LL and would only consider "censoring" obviously diverse marks from people with a blatant ongoing hatred of a given player. We can all name the player (s) and poster (s) concerned.

    Likewise diverse marks from people with a blatant ongoing love of a given player. We can all name the player (s) and poster (s) concerned............
  • Options
    LenGloverLenGlover
    [cite]Posted By: Stone[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]I like to think that normally my marks are around the average but I think I was on the high side this week although ALL my marks were between 5 and 7. Hardly extreme either way.

    I agree with LL and would only consider "censoring" obviously diverse marks from people with a blatant ongoing hatred of a given player. We can all name the player (s) and poster (s) concerned.

    Likewise diverse marks from people with a blatant ongoing love of a given player. We can all name the player (s) and poster (s) concerned............


    Agreed.

    Sadly though there is more hate than lurve on this board at the moment!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!