People saying drop Hamer are mad. If he is a victim of a fragile psyche then telling him that as soon as he makes a couple of mistakes he's out will irreparably shatter his confidence. We're still top of the league by miles and he's hardly cost us the last two matches. We scored exactly zero goals agianst Colchester, making his mistake irrelevant and while he didn't cover himself in glory yesterday from what I heard I very much doubt he's the sole reason we lost. I saw people on the scores thread giving him a 2. 2! You'd have to defect to Palace halfway through the match and deliberately score five own goals before you should get considered for a 2. That's Ali Dia levels of incompetence, not just a keeper having a poor game. Stuff like that makes the scores thread pointless to be honest. But that's another issue I have, the main point is binning Hamer for his performance is bad management, unless he makes it clear to Powell that he wants to be taken out of the firing line and will come back stronger.
Against Colchester I would have said he should have saved the first goal as well. Even if you don't think that, conceding the second when we did obviously completely killed the game as we were the team making all the chances at the time. The fact we scored 0 goals is irrelevant really...
Against Notts the 1st and the 3rd goals were his fault. He didn't make a save the whole game as far as I can remember so you can't exactly be shocked with low scores in a ratings topic by emotional fans
It's hardly irrelevant. If the team had taken their chances in the first half we could have gone in 3 or 4-1 up. You can't miss a hatful of chances then blame your keeper at the other end if you lost. Football is about scoring goals and we missed our chance to stuff Colchester on Tuesday, we really did. Turning around and saying that loss is Hamer's fault lets the players' whose job it is to win us games off too easy.
I'm not shocked by the low ratings on the match thread, I'm just pointing out they're stupid. I know fans are emotional but a 2/10 is a level of poor performance that boggles the mind. It just makes me feel like the other people doing the scores and Lancs are wasting their time as the end of season tallies get skewed by emotional fans losing the plot. I want to be able to look back on a rational set of scores that are indicative of a season's perfomance, not a score that has an asterisk next to it that says 'please note people lost their goddamn minds at one point during this player's scoring'
My main point before though was that dropping Hamer could destroy him and send out a bad message to the whole team. We very much need to avoid going down the Pardew route of losing a game, switching the team, until we've played nearly 40 different players and no-one knows what's going on. Hamer's had too godd a season to be shown that little faith I feel
I saw people on the scores thread giving him a 2. 2! You'd have to defect to Palace halfway through the match and deliberately score five own goals before you should get considered for a 2. #
That's Ali Dia levels of incompetence, not just a keeper having a poor game.
Stuff like that makes the scores thread pointless to be honest.
Good point, well made.
There's an element of posters who mark a player based on their feelings only - and prove to everybody that they have no system or even any idea on how to mark players fairly.
It's hardly irrelevant. If the team had taken their chances in the first half we could have gone in 3 or 4-1 up. You can't miss a hatful of chances then blame your keeper at the other end if you lost. Football is about scoring goals and we missed our chance to stuff Colchester on Tuesday, we really did. Turning around and saying that loss is Hamer's fault lets the players' whose job it is to win us games off too easy.
I'm not shocked by the low ratings on the match thread, I'm just pointing out they're stupid. I know fans are emotional but a 2/10 is a level of poor performance that boggles the mind. It just makes me feel like the other people doing the scores and Lancs are wasting their time as the end of season tallies get skewed by emotional fans losing the plot. I want to be able to look back on a rational set of scores that are indicative of a season's perfomance, not a score that has an asterisk next to it that says 'please note people lost their goddamn minds at one point during this player's scoring'
My main point before though was that dropping Hamer could destroy him and send out a bad message to the whole team. We very much need to avoid going down the Pardew route of losing a game, switching the team, until we've played nearly 40 different players and no-one knows what's going on. Hamer's had too godd a season to be shown that little faith I feel
I agree with you pretty much. I wasn't suggesting blame Hamer for the Colchester loss but just his mistake(s) changed the game dramatically against us so I wouldn't have called them "irrelevant". Although I can see where you're coming from with the missing of opportunities could be said to have the same affect.
I think the ratings thread is always going to be fairly ridiculously extreme in both the positive and the negative anyway so I have rarely paid any attention to it if I'm honest.
Like I said, I agree with you and I would definitely not drop Hamer. I think we could do with maybe 1 or 2 changes just to keep it slightly fresh, like Haynes/Wagstaff yesterday, with players determined to prove their worth etc. Hamer though is still our number 1, despite his recent mistakes, and I'm sure he won't be dropped.
I saw people on the scores thread giving him a 2. 2! You'd have to defect to Palace halfway through the match and deliberately score five own goals before you should get considered for a 2. That's Ali Dia levels of incompetence, not just a keeper having a poor game.
I'm not shocked by the low ratings on the match thread, I'm just pointing out they're stupid. I know fans are emotional but a 2/10 is a level of poor performance that boggles the mind. It just makes me feel like the other people doing the scores and Lancs are wasting their time as the end of season tallies get skewed by emotional fans losing the plot. I want to be able to look back on a rational set of scores that are indicative of a season's perfomance, not a score that has an asterisk next to it that says 'please note people lost their goddamn minds at one point during this player's scoring'
Given I work for a company that is trying to objectively work out how to mark players properly for their performance, I feel I'm in a position to comment about this.
I gave Hamer 2. I start every player with a mark of 5 and move up or down from there. 2 is as bad a performance as 8 is good. None of the defence can claim to have had an above average performance, so I don't see how you can mark any of them above 5. There's no point marking out of 10 if you can't give below 4. And it doesn't skew the season's performance at all. Every performance should be rated in isolation, it's completely irrelevant how the player has performed in other games.
That said, I agree that it would be foolish to drop Hamer. He's had a bad week, but has still been part of one of the best defences in the country this season.
Well, at least you have a system, Dabos ...... although incredibly harsh to single out 1 player who makes maybe 2 mistakes in 90+ minutes..... and award him just 2.
Hamer shared responsiblity for the 1st goal from 30 yards, and probably the 3rd goal in which he failed to be decisive or command his defence.
That's 2 mistakes - and yes, they cost us 2 goals. But the rest of his game was no worse than the 10 players in front of him, who no doubt made more than 2 mistakes each during the game.
Even the 1st goal wouldn't have been conceded, if the midfield had closed down the scorer quickly; or the 3rd goal if Taylor had put the ball into Row Z. Defending is a team responsibility.
Well, at least you have a system, Dabos ...... although incredibly harsh to single out 1 player who makes maybe 2 mistakes in 90+ minutes..... and award him just 2.
That's 2 mistakes - and yes, they cost us 2 goals. But the rest of his game was no worse than the 10 players in front of him, who no doubt made more than 2 mistakes each during the game.
I start every player with a mark of 5 and move up or down from there. 2 is as bad a performance as 8 is good. None of the defence can claim to have had an above average performance, so I don't see how you can mark any of them above 5. There's no point marking out of 10 if you can't give below 4. And it doesn't skew the season's performance at all. Every performance should be rated in isolation, it's completely irrelevant how the player has performed in other games.
That sounds a very good system. Whenever I've bothered to mark (and I confess I don't very often get around to it!) my approach has always been far more haphazard than that, based on an overall but rather nebulous ''impression'' of a player's contribution over 90 mins. I'm going to try your method next time, Dabos. Thanks.
And you are absolutely right. If you can't mark below four there is no point in doing marks out of ten at all. You might as well switch to a far cruder and less nuanced system of one to five stars.
That's interesting dabos, but I still don't see how you arrived at a 2 for Hamer. One difference we have is I start every player at a 6, which I consider an average performance for that level, and I believe that's fairly standard. I think you can go below a 4 for a player but it has to be a very, very poor performance to merit it. I don't think Alonso's performance against Brentford merited it and I don't think anyone this season has merited it. Sure, take the marks in isolation, I do too except maybe when considering mitigating circumstances for performance like tiredness or injury from a previous game, but giving Hamer a 2 in an all-round poor first half performance still doesnt add up, especially considering he didn't let any goals in in the second half. Sounds like he had an exemplary second half actually, so he's somehow managed to reach war crimes level of bad in 45 minutes. Bizarre
Well, at least you have a system, Dabos ...... although incredibly harsh to single out 1 player who makes maybe 2 mistakes in 90+ minutes..... and award him just 2.
Hamer shared responsiblity for the 1st goal from 30 yards, and probably the 3rd goal in which he failed to be decisive or command his defence.
That's 2 mistakes - and yes, they cost us 2 goals. But the rest of his game was no worse than the 10 players in front of him, who no doubt made more than 2 mistakes each during the game.
Even the 1st goal wouldn't have been conceded, if the midfield had closed down the scorer quickly; or the 3rd goal if Taylor had put the ball into Row Z. Defending is a team responsibility.
My retort to that would be to say that calamitous errors should be punished severely - it's not enough to just say he made 2 errors, it's how bad the errors were. As a goalkeeper, if you gift the opposition 2 goals, and play a big part in conceding a further two, the score awarded should be low. It's a qualitative analysis as opposed to a quantitative one.
Agree also that defending is a team responsibility, hence I also punished the defence for a particular poor show in the first half. They all showed they can defend in the second half, but the severity of the mistakes in the first half outweighed the routine skills they showed in the second, hence they didn't do enough to bump their score up to an average mark.
I think it just goes to show that rating a player's performance is actually ridiculously hard. And as we're all CAFC fans it's hard not to take an emotional view point of events.
Hopefully it will be a reminder to the players that although were in a healthy position were not promoted yet. Im sure CP will demand a response against Scunny because we've done so well this season that it would be a disaster if we mucked it up.
I'm not too cocerned by yesterday. The first half was comically bad and none of the back five covered themselves in glory but they fought well in the second half and with a bit of luck could have got an improbable point.
My only real concern is centre mid seems to lack any real spite. I know a lot of people are pointing the finger at Dale Stephens but for me Danny Hollands is looking half the player he did earlier in the season. May be time to rotate the squad and have a bit more bite alongside Stephens or Hollands.
Hamer had a poor game and unusually for him was indecisive. I think long term he will be fine, he's a decisive keeper and as such will get it spectactuarly wrong a couple of times a season, I'd rather have him than a keeper who is glued to his line and doesn't command his area.
Finally, credit to the fans who stayed and got behind the team and clapped them off at full time.
I'm pleased with being top and the number if points we've got but tbh we've played poorly in a number of games this season. I would have expected given our position that we'd be more commanding at home but we keep churning out some fairly dismal performances whilst managing to get results. Yesterday and Tuesday the luck ran out. I'm hoping the team's character will be enough to get it through.
A key element of the markings system is that it is a subjective view. If everyone has to do it the same way and there can be no disagreement about who deserves what, we might as well appoint one person to do the markings while the rest of us just agree with him. What's so wrong with making judgements in the heat of battle anyway? At least you're getting an honest view and not one moderated by afterthoughts and other people's opinions.
That's interesting dabos, but I still don't see how you arrived at a 2 for Hamer. One difference we have is I start every player at a 6, which I consider an average performance for that level, and I believe that's fairly standard. I think you can go below a 4 for a player but it has to be a very, very poor performance to merit it.
I don't think Alonso's performance against Brentford merited it and I don't think anyone this season has merited it. Sure, take the marks in isolation, I do too except maybe when considering mitigating circumstances for performance like tiredness or injury from a previous game, but giving Hamer a 2 in an all-round poor first half performance still doesnt add up, especially considering he didn't let any goals in in the second half.
Sounds like he had an exemplary second half actually, so he's somehow managed to reach war crimes level of bad in 45 minutes. Bizarre
Garry, agree 100% with your post. Like you, I consider 6 to be a standard or average but not standout performance; a 5 is ineffective and too many mistakes; and a 4 is a bit of a stinker but at least the player is trying hard to keep his game together.
I'd mark a player as 3 if he were hiding in the game, bad attitude and lack of effort. And the manager would need shooting if that player wasn't subbed.
Marking a player below that surely has to be everything to do with questioning his professionalism - eg when Danny Mills deliberately got himself sent off - and not just the fact that he has made a couple of key mistakes that have cost goals.
Otherwise, we would have to be consistant and deduct a mark for each and every mistake by every player ....... ridiculously, we could be marking players with minuses.
First live game for me in a while. Though I might have got a better reward for travelling down from Scotland! First half was simply surreal - every time they got the ball forward, they scored. Never been convinced by Hamer, and still am not, though Taylore should just have fired it at us in row Z for third. Also disappointed by Kermo - he puts himself about and wins headers, but there is no link up and it all seems a bit aimless. He also lost us a lot of momentum towards the end, getting into scrapes with the oppo and having a go about it, then going down injured. Wiggy was shocking - epitomised by the time he completely missed the pull back from the corner. If JJ is not fit, we simply should not be playing him. He did not fulfil the captain's role. That seemed to be left to Waggy (lovely cross) and BWP -the only ones geeing up the team and keeping at it.
Can understand why no second half subs - this lot got us into the mess, so SCP wanted to leave them to see if they could get us out of it. Changes might have disrupted things rather than improved them.
Not sure why Haynes went off - I had already commented that he looked like he was hiding. If injured, why didn't he go down tunnel? Perhaps he was ill, or perhaps he said something that SCP did not like?
Predicted there would be a drop in results when I saw the stats that we were just one point ahead of where the 99/00 team was after same number of games. That season we kept coming to matches thinking it was going to seal promotion, but we kept losing or drawing...can feel the same expensive trips coming on again over next few weeks!! I'm sure we can still do it, but it's not done yet - just read Powell's post match comments. No room for complacency anywhere.
Nice to see Len Glover, MOG and Henry before the match in the Lib.
That's interesting dabos, but I still don't see how you arrived at a 2 for Hamer. One difference we have is I start every player at a 6, which I consider an average performance for that level, and I believe that's fairly standard. I think you can go below a 4 for a player but it has to be a very, very poor performance to merit it.
I don't think Alonso's performance against Brentford merited it and I don't think anyone this season has merited it. Sure, take the marks in isolation, I do too except maybe when considering mitigating circumstances for performance like tiredness or injury from a previous game, but giving Hamer a 2 in an all-round poor first half performance still doesnt add up, especially considering he didn't let any goals in in the second half.
Sounds like he had an exemplary second half actually, so he's somehow managed to reach war crimes level of bad in 45 minutes. Bizarre
Garry, agree 100% with your post. Like you, I consider 6 to be a standard or average but not standout performance; a 5 is ineffective and too many mistakes; and a 4 is a bit of a stinker but at least the player is trying hard to keep his game together.
I'd mark a player as 3 if he were hiding in the game, bad attitude and lack of effort. And the manager would need shooting if that player wasn't subbed.
Marking a player below that surely has to be everything to do with questioning his professionalism - eg when Danny Mills deliberately got himself sent off - and not just the fact that he has made a couple of key mistakes that have cost goals.
Otherwise, we would have to be consistant and deduct a mark for each and every mistake by every player ....... ridiculously, we could be marking players with minuses.
Maybe LL could publish a list of 0-10 ratings giving some kind of description?
The first half is what happens when concentration levels drop - all players however good become worse when they don't concentrate - happened to my son's team yesterday, started the game well scored first then stopped thinking, the result 3 quick goals against in 10 minutes. One/two need dropping to re-emphasise the point.
I have to take the positive first. Second half we came out and gave it a real go but as you would reasonably expect after getting a couple we ran out of steam/ideas but at least the team played with some purpose.
First half was almost surreal I sit lower North behind the goal and without doubt Hamer was late moving for the first, was mainly culpable for the third although Taylor was also at fault they just didn't communicate, and didn't make any challenge for the fourth hence our otherwise excellent defence all got nervous and we were four behind in short time. I found it hard to take in given the wonderful season we are having but I suppose you have to give credit to Notts County who were very good and have in Forte a real handful of a forward who has been the first this season to really unsettle Morrison.
So what's next? well no panic I would say but Chris Powell needs to look at the midfield like a lot of posters I think we played our best football when Andy Hughes was anchoring in front of the defence allowing Danny Hollands to get forward more. Not sure why CP has stopped rating him it seems to be a trait with all managers that they fall out with one player or another but of course we don't know what goes on in the background. As a Footballer I like Dale Stephens the boy has talent but when there is a scrap to be had he isn't up to it and on top of that he tries to play the "Hollywood" pass all the time and also has a tendency to go sideways a lot. So maybe give Hamer a rest as he looks shellshocked at the moment, stiffen up that midfield with a ball winner and maybe get Hayes back as an impact player.
We are still in pole position with our destiny in our own hands it's up to CP to steady the ship possibly make a few necessary changes and make sure we get the run in right this is the test of his management and I am happy he will get it right.
apart from bradders bicycle kick which i thought the ref had blown up for a foul so didnt jump up till mog told me he had given it, the only high light was an excelent header from a bloke behind the goal in the north lower, it made its way out for a throw in which if morro and taylor had been watching could have learnt alot from that fan!
apart from bradders bicycle kick which i thought the ref had blown up for a foul so didnt jump up till mog told me he had given it, the only high light was an excelent header from a bloke behind the goal in the north lower, it made its way out for a throw in which if morro and taylor had been watching could have learnt alot from that fan!
I note that County's next 2 games are against the Sheffield clubs at home. After Saturday, I see no reason why the couldn't take points off both of them and do us a big favour.
I note that County's next 2 games are against the Sheffield clubs at home. After Saturday, I see no reason why the couldn't take points off both of them and do us a big favour.
The wake up call was one favour, taking points off the Sheffield clubs would certainly be the icing on the cake.
We'll be very happy to do you that favour! I'm hoping for a win and a draw, but you never know what you'll get with us.
It's quite comical reading their messageboards, The owls are saying we'll take points off the blades and vice versa. Neither seem to have considered that we might take points off them too.
We'll be very happy to do you that favour! I'm hoping for a win and a draw, but you never know what you'll get with us.
It's quite comical reading their messageboards, The owls are saying we'll take points off the blades and vice versa. Neither seem to have considered that we might take points off them too.
Mind you, they're MASSIVE aren't they?
With Curle in charge and the likes of Judge, Bishop and Forte in your team, you'll be a match for the best in this league, even the two massive Sheffield clubs. Good luck.
Comments
Against Notts the 1st and the 3rd goals were his fault. He didn't make a save the whole game as far as I can remember so you can't exactly be shocked with low scores in a ratings topic by emotional fans
I'm not shocked by the low ratings on the match thread, I'm just pointing out they're stupid. I know fans are emotional but a 2/10 is a level of poor performance that boggles the mind. It just makes me feel like the other people doing the scores and Lancs are wasting their time as the end of season tallies get skewed by emotional fans losing the plot. I want to be able to look back on a rational set of scores that are indicative of a season's perfomance, not a score that has an asterisk next to it that says 'please note people lost their goddamn minds at one point during this player's scoring'
My main point before though was that dropping Hamer could destroy him and send out a bad message to the whole team. We very much need to avoid going down the Pardew route of losing a game, switching the team, until we've played nearly 40 different players and no-one knows what's going on. Hamer's had too godd a season to be shown that little faith I feel
There's an element of posters who mark a player based on their feelings only - and prove to everybody that they have no system or even any idea on how to mark players fairly.
I think the ratings thread is always going to be fairly ridiculously extreme in both the positive and the negative anyway so I have rarely paid any attention to it if I'm honest.
Like I said, I agree with you and I would definitely not drop Hamer. I think we could do with maybe 1 or 2 changes just to keep it slightly fresh, like Haynes/Wagstaff yesterday, with players determined to prove their worth etc. Hamer though is still our number 1, despite his recent mistakes, and I'm sure he won't be dropped.
I gave Hamer 2. I start every player with a mark of 5 and move up or down from there. 2 is as bad a performance as 8 is good. None of the defence can claim to have had an above average performance, so I don't see how you can mark any of them above 5. There's no point marking out of 10 if you can't give below 4. And it doesn't skew the season's performance at all. Every performance should be rated in isolation, it's completely irrelevant how the player has performed in other games.
That said, I agree that it would be foolish to drop Hamer. He's had a bad week, but has still been part of one of the best defences in the country this season.
Hamer shared responsiblity for the 1st goal from 30 yards, and probably the 3rd goal in which he failed to be decisive or command his defence.
That's 2 mistakes - and yes, they cost us 2 goals. But the rest of his game was no worse than the 10 players in front of him, who no doubt made more than 2 mistakes each during the game.
Even the 1st goal wouldn't have been conceded, if the midfield had closed down the scorer quickly; or the 3rd goal if Taylor had put the ball into Row Z. Defending is a team responsibility.
And you are absolutely right. If you can't mark below four there is no point in doing marks out of ten at all. You might as well switch to a far cruder and less nuanced system of one to five stars.
Agree also that defending is a team responsibility, hence I also punished the defence for a particular poor show in the first half. They all showed they can defend in the second half, but the severity of the mistakes in the first half outweighed the routine skills they showed in the second, hence they didn't do enough to bump their score up to an average mark.
I think it just goes to show that rating a player's performance is actually ridiculously hard. And as we're all CAFC fans it's hard not to take an emotional view point of events.
My only real concern is centre mid seems to lack any real spite. I know a lot of people are pointing the finger at Dale Stephens but for me Danny Hollands is looking half the player he did earlier in the season. May be time to rotate the squad and have a bit more bite alongside Stephens or Hollands.
Hamer had a poor game and unusually for him was indecisive. I think long term he will be fine, he's a decisive keeper and as such will get it spectactuarly wrong a couple of times a season, I'd rather have him than a keeper who is glued to his line and doesn't command his area.
Finally, credit to the fans who stayed and got behind the team and clapped them off at full time.
In pub after the game most thought Hammer was at fault for 3 of the goals i thought two.
some of ours left at half time i stayed till the end.
Defo pen when it was 2 v 4 tho.
BWP was MotM for me never stopped running.
I'm hoping the team's character will be enough to get it through.
I'd mark a player as 3 if he were hiding in the game, bad attitude and lack of effort.
And the manager would need shooting if that player wasn't subbed.
Marking a player below that surely has to be everything to do with questioning his professionalism - eg when Danny Mills deliberately got himself sent off - and not just the fact that he has made a couple of key mistakes that have cost goals.
Otherwise, we would have to be consistant and deduct a mark for each and every mistake by every player ....... ridiculously, we could be marking players with minuses.
Can understand why no second half subs - this lot got us into the mess, so SCP wanted to leave them to see if they could get us out of it. Changes might have disrupted things rather than improved them.
Not sure why Haynes went off - I had already commented that he looked like he was hiding. If injured, why didn't he go down tunnel? Perhaps he was ill, or perhaps he said something that SCP did not like?
Predicted there would be a drop in results when I saw the stats that we were just one point ahead of where the 99/00 team was after same number of games. That season we kept coming to matches thinking it was going to seal promotion, but we kept losing or drawing...can feel the same expensive trips coming on again over next few weeks!! I'm sure we can still do it, but it's not done yet - just read Powell's post match comments. No room for complacency anywhere.
Nice to see Len Glover, MOG and Henry before the match in the Lib.
First half was almost surreal I sit lower North behind the goal and without doubt Hamer was late moving for the first, was mainly culpable for the third although Taylor was also at fault they just didn't communicate, and didn't make any challenge for the fourth hence our otherwise excellent defence all got nervous and we were four behind in short time. I found it hard to take in given the wonderful season we are having but I suppose you have to give credit to Notts County who were very good and have in Forte a real handful of a forward who has been the first this season to really unsettle Morrison.
So what's next? well no panic I would say but Chris Powell needs to look at the midfield like a lot of posters I think we played our best football when Andy Hughes was anchoring in front of the defence allowing Danny Hollands to get forward more. Not sure why CP has stopped rating him it seems to be a trait with all managers that they fall out with one player or another but of course we don't know what goes on in the background. As a Footballer I like Dale Stephens the boy has talent but when there is a scrap to be had he isn't up to it and on top of that he tries to play the "Hollywood" pass all the time and also has a tendency to go sideways a lot. So maybe give Hamer a rest as he looks shellshocked at the moment, stiffen up that midfield with a ball winner and maybe get Hayes back as an impact player.
We are still in pole position with our destiny in our own hands it's up to CP to steady the ship possibly make a few necessary changes and make sure we get the run in right this is the test of his management and I am happy he will get it right.
It's quite comical reading their messageboards, The owls are saying we'll take points off the blades and vice versa. Neither seem to have considered that we might take points off them too.
Mind you, they're MASSIVE aren't they?