Hamer - 7 - Not much to do, great stop on the goal line, it was not over the line. Clean sheet so confidence should improve. Solly - 9 - MOTM - I think the Solly v Francis arguement has been put to bed.
Morrison - 7 - Good patnership developing with Taylor
Taylor - 7 - Ditto
Wiggins - 5 - Poor, still not convinced, would like to see a change.
Wagstaff - 7 - Good game Stephens - 7 - Needs to be more consistant, good finish though.
Hollands - 6 - Played well, not much to worry about after they went to ten.
Jackson - 5 - I thought JJ looked tired and lacked energy. Hayes - 7 - If only his touch matched the quality of his positional play, set up BWP so thats all right. Wright Phillips - 8 - Tireless running, good finish and loved his geeture to the Exeter fans at the end for all the stick he was getting.
Powell - 7 - I thought he should have gone 3-5-2 after they went to ten men, however we won 2 - 0 so what do I know?
Can you explain in which way Wiggins was poor?
Yes I can, he is not physically strong enough, he looks nervous on the ball, his positional play and game reading need work too. Also he doesn't seem to understand that footballs bounce and in the last two games he has misjudged a bouncing ball. I am not slaughtering Wiggins at all, IMHO I thought he had a poor game, I'm sure he will come good but on saturday he was our weakest link.
I completely disagree with your assessment. Hardly put a foot wrong and would be one of my first names on the teamsheet.
I wasn't there BUT.....Hamer keeps blank sheet (which is why he's there) and still gets scores of 5 or only just better. Does he have to score from a corner or save a pen to get a score.......
Agree .......... he's done his job and done it well, hence the clean sheet. And yet he gets marked a 5 = poor?
If he hasn't got much to do, then that's down to the entire defence playing well as a unit, of which he is an integral part.
With no glaring errors and participating as required, his performance has to be marked as an average of the whole defence, surely?
As Henry would say it's possibly "Charlton eyes". In other words if you were a Robbie "supporter" then you automatically give Hamer a poor score.
Agree .......... he's done his job and done it well, hence the clean sheet. And yet he gets marked a 5 = poor?
5 is average, not poor
Since when? Since I was a kid in the 60s, the ratings marks in sports newspapers, football magazines, etc are always printed as:
4 - Stinker 5 - Poor 6 - Average 7 - Good 8 - Very good 9 - Excellent 10 - Out of this world / Total Masterclass
How they did it in the 60s is completely illogical.
What's the point in marking it out of 10 then if we're never going to use numbers 1-3. The scale you've given is a mark out of 6 (assuming 4 corresponds to 0).
5 is half of 10. 5 is the mean and median of 10. It should therefore be representative of an average performance.
How they did it in the 60s is completely illogical.
What's the point in marking it out of 10 then if we're never going to use numbers 1-3. The scale you've given is a mark out of 6 (assuming 4 corresponds to 0).
5 is half of 10. 5 is the mean and median of 10. It should therefore be representative of an average performance.
Try counting on your fingers, Dabos.......... on the first hand, you can count from 1 to 5, and on the other hand, you'll count 6 to 10. You may find that illogical - but it is FACT
Not just in the 60s, but before that and ever since.
So what exactly is your definition of a player rating of 1? Or 2? Or 3?
The main point is that there is a consistant scale of reasoned marking .......out of interest, referees are marked by clubs in a similar way, which was always used as the basis for the match reporters' traditional player markings.
Perhaps Spankie (or another referee) will post how referees are marked after the game.
Comments
4 - Stinker
5 - Poor
6 - Average
7 - Good
8 - Very good
9 - Excellent
10 - Out of this world / Total Masterclass
And whether you agreed with them or not, at least there was a printed scale of markings to reason by.
the point in marking it out of 10 then if we're never going to use
numbers 1-3. The scale you've given is a mark out of 6 (assuming 4
corresponds to 0).
Try counting on your fingers, Dabos.......... on the first hand, you can count from 1 to 5, and on the other hand, you'll count 6 to 10.
You may find that illogical - but it is FACT
Not just in the 60s, but before that and ever since.
So what exactly is your definition of a player rating of 1?
Or 2?
Or 3?
The main point is that there is a consistant scale of reasoned marking .......out of interest, referees are marked by clubs in a similar way, which was always used as the basis for the match reporters' traditional player markings.
Perhaps Spankie (or another referee) will post how referees are marked after the game.