Henderson 6.5 couldn't do much with goals Solly 4.5 not that great today and not captain material Fox 5 up against it, didn;t do to bad Johnson 5.5 some good blocks and looked like he wanted to be here Ben Haim 5 not great today Gudmundsson 6.5 porr first, much better 2nd Diarra 6.5 worked hard, not everything came off Buyens 4.5 shame it's likely to be his lat game with us Bulot 5 worked hard, some mistakes Watt 6 again worked hard, our main threat Vetokele 4.5 not fit. shouldn't have been playing Church 4.5 did his usual, didn't look interested. Wish him well but we really need to strengthen
Henderson - 6: a relatively quiet game, despite their complete dominance. Solly - 5: poor by Chris' standards. He suffered against Bournemouth's pressing game. Fox - 4.5: pretty weak but was over-run by Ritchie, Francis and numerous others. Continues to get sucked into the middle. Johnson - 5: one great block in the first half and very committed but I don't think he is what we need if we are to progress. Ben Haim - 5: not one of his better games and looked a bit lackadaisical at times. Gudmundsson - 6.5: our best player in the second half. Diarra - 6.5: about the only player of ours who made a tackle in that dreadful first half. Buyens - 4: extremely poor and didn't look too bothered to me. Bulot - 5.5: some nice footwork but unable to make an impact. Watt - 6: a few really good moments but needs to get properly fit over the summer. Vetokele - 4: poor Church - 5.5: some lively movement and one decent effort on goal but had no chance against their solid central defenders.
Henderson - 6 Solly - 6 at fault their third. Tried to dribble his way out the box and got muscled off the ball. Fox -6 Johnson -6 Ben Haim - 6 back pass late on summed us up. Gudmundsson - 7 Diarra - 7 Buyens - 3 mugged for their second way too easy and a pass/clog in the second half that was laughable Bulot - 6 Watt - 7 no support when attacking. Vetokele - 5 Can we have the real Igor back please? Church - 6 Ran, fell over his own feet, stepped on the ball.
Henderson 7 Solly 4.5 Fox 6.5 thanks but bye, hope we get a fee Johnson 5 thanks but bye Ben Haim 5 worth another year Gudmundsson 7 please sign Diarra 7.5 Buyens 4.5 thanks and bye Bulot 6 Watt 7 Vetokele 5
Henderson - 6 Solly - 6 Fox - 6 Johnson - 3 Ben Haim - 3 Gudmundsson - 6 Diarra - 6 Buyens - 5 Bulot - 5.5 Watt - 6 Vetokele - 6 Church - 6
CBs were responsible for both first half goals, didn't see the third properly at the far end, Henderson didn't have much of a chance. Buyens looks like someone who knows he is leaving the network. Watt signalled he wanted to stay on but sometimes you need to overrule your players as a manager.
Hopefully we replace TBH, Johnson and Eagles over the summer as I don't feel they add enough to justify a squad place based on performances since jan.
Henderson - 5.5 There is some justification to give him 10. He did nothing wrong - except pick the ball out of the net 3 times...
Solly - 4 So poor. Over run, and responsible for the 3rd goal. Also should never be captain again. Whenever a Charlton player went down injured, you would expect the captain to show some concern. Usually, it was Diarra going to check how he the player was.
Fox - 6 Probably the best of the back four. At least showed some passion. Was more in trouble, (again) when Bulot was replaced by Eagles.
Johnson - 5 The only thing missing from the two centre backs was the squeaky shoes, and revolving bow ties. At least Roger looked angry he was playing like a clown!
Ben Haim - 5 See above. Without the angry bit.
Gudmundsson - 6.5 Did not see the ball anywhere near enough in the first half. When he did, carved out our best chance of the game. His reaction after the third goal shows that he was at least as disappointed as the fans.
Diarra - 7 MoTM. A rock of calm in a sea of chaos. Tackled well, and probably had our best shot of the whole game. Showed himself to be 10 times the captain that Solly ever will be. The only player in our midfield that could win a header, which he did consistently. Glad he will be around next season.
Buyens - 4.5 Responsible for their 2nd goal. Nothing he did really came off. Put in more effort than our 2 starting strikers though. I think the idea of playing Diarra and Buyens together was to give Yoni the freedom to play farther forward. The problem was, without Cousins, the midfield lost so much pace and drive. Perhaps those at this game, who are critical of Jordan, can now see what he brings to the side.
Bulot - 5.5 The quickest player on the pitch in a Charlton shirt. A bit like Henderson, difficult to see what he did wrong, except falling over a few times, once in a dangerous position, but he had at least got back to cover for Fox. Should be credited for being the one player who always showed instant ball control. We will be a better side next season if we could keep him.
Watt - 5 I have always been a fan, but the last few games he has begun to anger me. Totally useless in the first half. Ran into cul-de-sacs, couldn't pass, didn't shoot. One good run in the 2nd half. And his fitness levels are dreadful. To go off with cramp, (leaving us down to 10 men) after over 4 months of match football and training, is nothing short of scandalous. Perhaps that is the issue that other managers have had a problem with.
Vetokele - 5 Was nothing better than willing. Has lost his mojo big time, to the extent that he seems unwilling to even shoot anymore. Go away for the summer, Igor, and come back fit and eager again.
Church - 6 Let's all laugh at Chrchy... Wait a minute, showed more willingness and determination than the other 2 strikers added together. Almost got on the end of a good Gomez cross in the 2nd half, at the end of our best move of the match. After being deserted by Watt, kept trying, although often surrounded by 4 black shirts. Simon may be limited, but I wish we could bottle a bit of his grit, and feed it to our other strikers.
I've concluded that I don't understand how the marks work. If zero is the lowest and ten the highest, an average performance would be worth 5.5. How can anyone in a team (apart from the keeper maybe) playing at home that loses 0-3, has only 37% possession, with two shots on target and only two corners in the entire match possibly get anything over, say, a four?
I've concluded that I don't understand how the marks work. If zero is the lowest and ten the highest, an average performance would be worth 5.5. How can anyone in a team (apart from the keeper maybe) playing at home that loses 0-3, has only 37% possession, with two shots on target and only two corners in the entire match possibly get anything over, say, a four?
Football is a team game. We could have Wayne Rooney/Christiano Ronaldo/Lionel Messi playing for us, who scored a 10. If the rest of the team are Sunday pub players, I bet they would still lose to a League 2 side...
Henderson - 6 No real saves to make and not at fault for the goals Solly - 5 Poor today and says nothing as captain Fox - 5 Did OK ish Johnson - 6.5 Underestimated - made at least 4 goal bound blocks and talking all game Ben Haim - 6 Not at his best and on his way I think Gudmundsson - 6 Tried hard with little support up front Diarra - 6 Looks like he is trying and made some good tackles .never a yellow card! Buyens - 4 Not at the races today Bulot - 6 Did OK Watt - 5 Poor by his standards .kept losing the ball Vetokele - 3 Abject performance and not at his best at all with no hold up play. Church - 5 Tried very hard when he came on
Up against very good side but made them look better by capitulating the game in the 1st 11 minutes with the second goal a disaster from a bad pass inside instead of up the line.Lets be realistic ..near the bottom 3 in Feb and ended up 12th so it could have been a lot worse !!
I've concluded that I don't understand how the marks work. If zero is the lowest and ten the highest, an average performance would be worth 5.5. How can anyone in a team (apart from the keeper maybe) playing at home that loses 0-3, has only 37% possession, with two shots on target and only two corners in the entire match possibly get anything over, say, a four?
Football is a team game. We could have Wayne Rooney/Christiano Ronaldo/Lionel Messi playing for us, who scored a 10. If the rest of the team are Sunday pub players, I bet they would still lose to a League 2 side...
Thanks for pointing out that it's a team game - I hadn't noticed that.
But if that's the only criterion, why are we doing individual marks at all?
In any event, it doesn't help me. Does the mark relate to some notional average performance for a player in a certain position in our league? Or does it relate to how an individual player performed against their perceived "normal" performance? For example, would a "normal" Ronaldo get an 8 or should he get a 5.5 because he did nothing outstanding compared with his usual superb efforts? Or would Ronaldo and Messi always be a 10 and lesser mortals would be some way below that?
So, back to actuality: what is a six for Johnson's performance yesterday? Does it indicate that he was better than either his average; a notional average performance for a player in his position in our league; or a six compared with, say, Chiellini?
I've concluded that I don't understand how the marks work. If zero is the lowest and ten the highest, an average performance would be worth 5.5. How can anyone in a team (apart from the keeper maybe) playing at home that loses 0-3, has only 37% possession, with two shots on target and only two corners in the entire match possibly get anything over, say, a four?
Football is a team game. We could have Wayne Rooney/Christiano Ronaldo/Lionel Messi playing for us, who scored a 10. If the rest of the team are Sunday pub players, I bet they would still lose to a League 2 side...
Thanks for pointing out that it's a team game - I hadn't noticed that.
But if that's the only criterion, why are we doing individual marks at all?
In any event, it doesn't help me. Does the mark relate to some notional average performance for a player in a certain position in our league? Or does it relate to how an individual player performed against their perceived "normal" performance? For example, would a "normal" Ronaldo get an 8 or should he get a 5.5 because he did nothing outstanding compared with his usual superb efforts? Or would Ronaldo and Messi always be a 10 and lesser mortals would be some way below that?
So, back to actuality: what is a six for Johnson's performance yesterday? Does it indicate that he was better than either his average; a notional average performance for a player in his position in our league; or a six compared with, say, Chiellini?
I would suggest that you don't read this thread anymore. You seem to be frustrated that no-one else seems to see a football match in exactly the same way as you do...
I've concluded that I don't understand how the marks work. If zero is the lowest and ten the highest, an average performance would be worth 5.5. How can anyone in a team (apart from the keeper maybe) playing at home that loses 0-3, has only 37% possession, with two shots on target and only two corners in the entire match possibly get anything over, say, a four?
Football is a team game. We could have Wayne Rooney/Christiano Ronaldo/Lionel Messi playing for us, who scored a 10. If the rest of the team are Sunday pub players, I bet they would still lose to a League 2 side...
Thanks for pointing out that it's a team game - I hadn't noticed that.
But if that's the only criterion, why are we doing individual marks at all?
In any event, it doesn't help me. Does the mark relate to some notional average performance for a player in a certain position in our league? Or does it relate to how an individual player performed against their perceived "normal" performance? For example, would a "normal" Ronaldo get an 8 or should he get a 5.5 because he did nothing outstanding compared with his usual superb efforts? Or would Ronaldo and Messi always be a 10 and lesser mortals would be some way below that?
So, back to actuality: what is a six for Johnson's performance yesterday? Does it indicate that he was better than either his average; a notional average performance for a player in his position in our league; or a six compared with, say, Chiellini?
I would suggest that you don't read this thread anymore. You seem to be frustrated that no-one else seems to see a football match in exactly the same way as you do...
Please don't make suggests to me as to what I read and what I don't.
I don't have any issues with how anybody marks, I'm just don't understand how I am supposed to mark anybody unless I know what the parameters are. Just tell me what I'm marking against and I'll think about joining in. Or don't you know either?
I've concluded that I don't understand how the marks work. If zero is the lowest and ten the highest, an average performance would be worth 5.5. How can anyone in a team (apart from the keeper maybe) playing at home that loses 0-3, has only 37% possession, with two shots on target and only two corners in the entire match possibly get anything over, say, a four?
Football is a team game. We could have Wayne Rooney/Christiano Ronaldo/Lionel Messi playing for us, who scored a 10. If the rest of the team are Sunday pub players, I bet they would still lose to a League 2 side...
Thanks for pointing out that it's a team game - I hadn't noticed that.
But if that's the only criterion, why are we doing individual marks at all?
In any event, it doesn't help me. Does the mark relate to some notional average performance for a player in a certain position in our league? Or does it relate to how an individual player performed against their perceived "normal" performance? For example, would a "normal" Ronaldo get an 8 or should he get a 5.5 because he did nothing outstanding compared with his usual superb efforts? Or would Ronaldo and Messi always be a 10 and lesser mortals would be some way below that?
So, back to actuality: what is a six for Johnson's performance yesterday? Does it indicate that he was better than either his average; a notional average performance for a player in his position in our league; or a six compared with, say, Chiellini?
I would suggest that you don't read this thread anymore. You seem to be frustrated that no-one else seems to see a football match in exactly the same way as you do...
Please don't make suggests to me as to what I read and what I don't.
I don't have any issues with how anybody marks, I'm just don't understand how I am supposed to mark anybody unless I know what the parameters are. Just tell me what I'm marking against and I'll think about joining in. Or don't you know either?
OK, try this.
In a game where we lose at home by 3 goals...
One of our players, a striker, early on, scores a screamer if a free kick from 25 yards.
Later, we get a free kick in side our own half. The same player sees the keeper off his line, and chips him from 75 yards.
Then late on, the same player picks up the ball in his own half, sets off on a slaloming run, beats six players, dummies the keeper to stroke the ball into the empty net for his hat-trick...
At the other end, the goal keeper lets 4 under his body, punches one corner into his own goal, and to round it off, in an attempt to start a quick counter attack, throws the ball into his own net.
We have had only 3 shots on target, (all by one player) and only 25% possession.
You would seriously give them both 4 out of 10? One is doing his job, the other isn't.
Isn't more logical to give the striker 10, and the keeper 1.
Henderson 7 Solly 6 Fox 6 Johnson 4 no pace Ben Haim 1 contemptible Gudmundsson 1 his agent must have had a word at halftime cos he couldn't get a game with my pub team based on his first 45 minutes of hiding, bottling challenges and giving the ball away, ran around a bit 2nd half but the closest he's gonna get to the PL is playing FIFA on h is playstation Diarra 6 honest but nothing special Buyens 1 always pulls his punches never gives us his best Sordell levels of cynicism. Adieu Yoni et ne retourne jamias, conasse! Bulot 6 quieter game Watt 6 Vetokele not fair to rate a player who was clearly too injured to start Church 5 runs around with commitment but he doesn't have the tools at this level
Gomez n/a mystifying why he didn't start - clearly not a full back Eagles n/a no discernible interest or effort
I've concluded that I don't understand how the marks work. If zero is the lowest and ten the highest, an average performance would be worth 5.5. How can anyone in a team (apart from the keeper maybe) playing at home that loses 0-3, has only 37% possession, with two shots on target and only two corners in the entire match possibly get anything over, say, a four?
Football is a team game. We could have Wayne Rooney/Christiano Ronaldo/Lionel Messi playing for us, who scored a 10. If the rest of the team are Sunday pub players, I bet they would still lose to a League 2 side...
Thanks for pointing out that it's a team game - I hadn't noticed that.
But if that's the only criterion, why are we doing individual marks at all?
In any event, it doesn't help me. Does the mark relate to some notional average performance for a player in a certain position in our league? Or does it relate to how an individual player performed against their perceived "normal" performance? For example, would a "normal" Ronaldo get an 8 or should he get a 5.5 because he did nothing outstanding compared with his usual superb efforts? Or would Ronaldo and Messi always be a 10 and lesser mortals would be some way below that?
So, back to actuality: what is a six for Johnson's performance yesterday? Does it indicate that he was better than either his average; a notional average performance for a player in his position in our league; or a six compared with, say, Chiellini?
I would suggest that you don't read this thread anymore. You seem to be frustrated that no-one else seems to see a football match in exactly the same way as you do...
Please don't make suggests to me as to what I read and what I don't.
I don't have any issues with how anybody marks, I'm just don't understand how I am supposed to mark anybody unless I know what the parameters are. Just tell me what I'm marking against and I'll think about joining in. Or don't you know either?
OK, try this.
In a game where we lose at home by 3 goals...
One of our players, a striker, early on, scores a screamer if a free kick from 25 yards.
Later, we get a free kick in side our own half. The same player sees the keeper off his line, and chips him from 75 yards.
Then late on, the same player picks up the ball in his own half, sets off on a slaloming run, beats six players, dummies the keeper to stroke the ball into the empty net for his hat-trick...
At the other end, the goal keeper lets 4 under his body, punches one corner into his own goal, and to round it off, in an attempt to start a quick counter attack, throws the ball into his own net.
We have had only 3 shots on target, (all by one player) and only 25% possession.
You would seriously give them both 4 out of 10? One is doing his job, the other isn't.
Isn't more logical to give the striker 10, and the keeper 1.
Does that make sense?
I'm sorry I'm cluttering up a thread which is not designed for discussion. But no, that doesn't help much. If the aforementioned fictional striker performed like that every match would he get a ten or a 5.5? If the keeper was rubbish but still better than he normally was, would he have got a three rather than a one? You see I ask this question because - and I'm not digging anyone out here, merely trying to understand - a marker above did this:
Solly - 5 Poor today Fox - 5 Did OK ish
So, according to those marks, that individual saw Solly and Fox as performing at the same level yesterday presumably. (Which, in my view, is reasonable). But one was described as OK and the other poor. So, I assume that people must factor in their own perceptions of how well or otherwise they believe a player does generally and therefore should be doing in a particular match and weight there result accordingly.
I've concluded that I don't understand how the marks work. If zero is the lowest and ten the highest, an average performance would be worth 5.5. How can anyone in a team (apart from the keeper maybe) playing at home that loses 0-3, has only 37% possession, with two shots on target and only two corners in the entire match possibly get anything over, say, a four?
Football is a team game. We could have Wayne Rooney/Christiano Ronaldo/Lionel Messi playing for us, who scored a 10. If the rest of the team are Sunday pub players, I bet they would still lose to a League 2 side...
Thanks for pointing out that it's a team game - I hadn't noticed that.
But if that's the only criterion, why are we doing individual marks at all?
In any event, it doesn't help me. Does the mark relate to some notional average performance for a player in a certain position in our league? Or does it relate to how an individual player performed against their perceived "normal" performance? For example, would a "normal" Ronaldo get an 8 or should he get a 5.5 because he did nothing outstanding compared with his usual superb efforts? Or would Ronaldo and Messi always be a 10 and lesser mortals would be some way below that?
So, back to actuality: what is a six for Johnson's performance yesterday? Does it indicate that he was better than either his average; a notional average performance for a player in his position in our league; or a six compared with, say, Chiellini?
I would suggest that you don't read this thread anymore. You seem to be frustrated that no-one else seems to see a football match in exactly the same way as you do...
Please don't make suggests to me as to what I read and what I don't.
I don't have any issues with how anybody marks, I'm just don't understand how I am supposed to mark anybody unless I know what the parameters are. Just tell me what I'm marking against and I'll think about joining in. Or don't you know either?
OK, try this.
In a game where we lose at home by 3 goals...
One of our players, a striker, early on, scores a screamer if a free kick from 25 yards.
Later, we get a free kick in side our own half. The same player sees the keeper off his line, and chips him from 75 yards.
Then late on, the same player picks up the ball in his own half, sets off on a slaloming run, beats six players, dummies the keeper to stroke the ball into the empty net for his hat-trick...
At the other end, the goal keeper lets 4 under his body, punches one corner into his own goal, and to round it off, in an attempt to start a quick counter attack, throws the ball into his own net.
We have had only 3 shots on target, (all by one player) and only 25% possession.
You would seriously give them both 4 out of 10? One is doing his job, the other isn't.
Isn't more logical to give the striker 10, and the keeper 1.
Does that make sense?
I'm sorry I'm cluttering up a thread which is not designed for discussion. But no, that doesn't help much. If the aforementioned fictional striker performed like that every match would he get a ten or a 5.5? If the keeper was rubbish but still better than he normally was, would he have got a three rather than a one? You see I ask this question because - and I'm not digging anyone out here, merely trying to understand - a marker above did this:
Solly - 5 Poor today Fox - 5 Did OK ish
So, according to those marks, that individual saw Solly and Fox as performing at the same level yesterday presumably. (Which, in my view, is reasonable). But one was described as OK and the other poor. So, I assume that people must factor in their own perceptions of how well or otherwise they believe a player does generally and therefore should be doing in a particular match and weight there result accordingly.
Is that right?
And should it be?
The only way people will stop factoring their own view of a player, is if they leave the human race.
Everybody has emotions. Is everyone in the whole world equally your friend?
If there was a fire in your house, would you save a loved one first, or a complete stranger who had just walked through the door.
If you are going to turn into Terminator, please let me know so I can avoid you...
Comments
Solly 5
Fox 3
Johnson 5
Ben Haim 5
Gudmundsson 6
Diarra 6
Buyens 3
Bulot 4
Watt 5
Vetokele 3
Church 5
Solly 4.5 not that great today and not captain material
Fox 5 up against it, didn;t do to bad
Johnson 5.5 some good blocks and looked like he wanted to be here
Ben Haim 5 not great today
Gudmundsson 6.5 porr first, much better 2nd
Diarra 6.5 worked hard, not everything came off
Buyens 4.5 shame it's likely to be his lat game with us
Bulot 5 worked hard, some mistakes
Watt 6 again worked hard, our main threat
Vetokele 4.5 not fit. shouldn't have been playing
Church 4.5 did his usual, didn't look interested. Wish him well but we really need to strengthen
Solly 4
Fox 3
Johnson 4
Ben Haim 6
Gudmundsson 7
Diarra 6
Buyens 3
Bulot 5
Watt 7
Vetokele 4
Church 4
Solly - 5: poor by Chris' standards. He suffered against Bournemouth's pressing game.
Fox - 4.5: pretty weak but was over-run by Ritchie, Francis and numerous others. Continues to get sucked into the middle.
Johnson - 5: one great block in the first half and very committed but I don't think he is what we need if we are to progress.
Ben Haim - 5: not one of his better games and looked a bit lackadaisical at times.
Gudmundsson - 6.5: our best player in the second half.
Diarra - 6.5: about the only player of ours who made a tackle in that dreadful first half.
Buyens - 4: extremely poor and didn't look too bothered to me.
Bulot - 5.5: some nice footwork but unable to make an impact.
Watt - 6: a few really good moments but needs to get properly fit over the summer.
Vetokele - 4: poor
Church - 5.5: some lively movement and one decent effort on goal but had no chance against their solid central defenders.
Solly 6
Fox 5.5
Johnson 5.5
Ben haim 6
Gudmundsson 6.5
Diarra 6
Buyens 5.5
Bulot 6
Vetokele 5
Watt 6
Church 5.5
Solly - 6 at fault their third. Tried to dribble his way out the box and got muscled off the ball.
Fox -6
Johnson -6
Ben Haim - 6 back pass late on summed us up.
Gudmundsson - 7
Diarra - 7
Buyens - 3 mugged for their second way too easy and a pass/clog in the second half that was laughable
Bulot - 6
Watt - 7 no support when attacking.
Vetokele - 5 Can we have the real Igor back please?
Church - 6 Ran, fell over his own feet, stepped on the ball.
Gomez n/a
Eagles n/a
Solly 6
Fox 5.5
Johnson 5.5
Ben Haim 6
Gudmundsson 7
Diarra 7
Buyens 5.5
Bulot 6
Watt 7
Vetokele 5.5
Church 5.5
Solly 4.5
Fox 6.5 thanks but bye, hope we get a fee
Johnson 5 thanks but bye
Ben Haim 5 worth another year
Gudmundsson 7 please sign
Diarra 7.5
Buyens 4.5 thanks and bye
Bulot 6
Watt 7
Vetokele 5
Church 4 bye-bye
Solly 5
Fox 4
Johnson 5
Ben Haim 5
Gudmundsson 6
Diarra 7
Buyens 4
Bulot 4
Watt 5
Vetokele 4
Church 4
Solly 5
Fox 5
Johnson 4
Ben Haim 5
Gudmundsson 6
Diarra 6
Buyens 4
Bulot 5
Watt 5
Vetokele 4
Church 6
Henderson 6.5
Solly 6.5
Fox 6.5
Johnson 6
Ben Haim 6
Gudmundson 7
Diarra 7.5
Buyens 5.5
Bulot 6
Watt 6
Vetokele 5.5
Church 6.5
Gomez n/a
Eagles n/a
Solly 5
Fox 4
Johnson 4
Ben Haim 5
Gudmundsson 7
Diarra 6
Buyens 4
Bulot 6
Watt 6
Vetokele 4
Church 5
Solly - 6
Fox - 6
Johnson - 3
Ben Haim - 3
Gudmundsson - 6
Diarra - 6
Buyens - 5
Bulot - 5.5
Watt - 6
Vetokele - 6
Church - 6
CBs were responsible for both first half goals, didn't see the third properly at the far end, Henderson didn't have much of a chance. Buyens looks like someone who knows he is leaving the network. Watt signalled he wanted to stay on but sometimes you need to overrule your players as a manager.
Hopefully we replace TBH, Johnson and Eagles over the summer as I don't feel they add enough to justify a squad place based on performances since jan.
Solly - 4 So poor. Over run, and responsible for the 3rd goal. Also should never be captain again. Whenever a Charlton player went down injured, you would expect the captain to show some concern. Usually, it was Diarra going to check how he the player was.
Fox - 6 Probably the best of the back four. At least showed some passion. Was more in trouble, (again) when Bulot was replaced by Eagles.
Johnson - 5 The only thing missing from the two centre backs was the squeaky shoes, and revolving bow ties. At least Roger looked angry he was playing like a clown!
Ben Haim - 5 See above. Without the angry bit.
Gudmundsson - 6.5 Did not see the ball anywhere near enough in the first half. When he did, carved out our best chance of the game. His reaction after the third goal shows that he was at least as disappointed as the fans.
Diarra - 7 MoTM. A rock of calm in a sea of chaos. Tackled well, and probably had our best shot of the whole game. Showed himself to be 10 times the captain that Solly ever will be. The only player in our midfield that could win a header, which he did consistently. Glad he will be around next season.
Buyens - 4.5 Responsible for their 2nd goal. Nothing he did really came off. Put in more effort than our 2 starting strikers though. I think the idea of playing Diarra and Buyens together was to give Yoni the freedom to play farther forward. The problem was, without Cousins, the midfield lost so much pace and drive. Perhaps those at this game, who are critical of Jordan, can now see what he brings to the side.
Bulot - 5.5 The quickest player on the pitch in a Charlton shirt. A bit like Henderson, difficult to see what he did wrong, except falling over a few times, once in a dangerous position, but he had at least got back to cover for Fox. Should be credited for being the one player who always showed instant ball control. We will be a better side next season if we could keep him.
Watt - 5 I have always been a fan, but the last few games he has begun to anger me. Totally useless in the first half. Ran into cul-de-sacs, couldn't pass, didn't shoot. One good run in the 2nd half. And his fitness levels are dreadful. To go off with cramp, (leaving us down to 10 men) after over 4 months of match football and training, is nothing short of scandalous. Perhaps that is the issue that other managers have had a problem with.
Vetokele - 5 Was nothing better than willing. Has lost his mojo big time, to the extent that he seems unwilling to even shoot anymore. Go away for the summer, Igor, and come back fit and eager again.
Church - 6 Let's all laugh at Chrchy... Wait a minute, showed more willingness and determination than the other 2 strikers added together. Almost got on the end of a good Gomez cross in the 2nd half, at the end of our best move of the match. After being deserted by Watt, kept trying, although often surrounded by 4 black shirts. Simon may be limited, but I wish we could bottle a bit of his grit, and feed it to our other strikers.
Solly 5
Fox 4
Johnson 4
Ben Haim 4
Gudmundsson 5
Diarra 5.5
Buyens 4
Bulot 5
Watt 5,5
Vetokele 4
Church 3 close the door on the way out.
Solly 6
Fox 6.5
Johnson 6
Ben Haim 6
Gudmundson 7
Diarra 7.5
Buyens 5.5
Bulot 6
Watt 6
Vetokele 5
Church 6.5
Solly 6
Fox 5
Johnson 5
Ben Haim 6
Gudmundsson 6
Diarra 6
Buyens 4
Bulot 4
Watt 5
Vetokele 4
Church 5
Solly - 5 Poor today and says nothing as captain
Fox - 5 Did OK ish
Johnson - 6.5 Underestimated - made at least 4 goal bound blocks and talking all game
Ben Haim - 6 Not at his best and on his way I think
Gudmundsson - 6 Tried hard with little support up front
Diarra - 6 Looks like he is trying and made some good tackles .never a yellow card!
Buyens - 4 Not at the races today
Bulot - 6 Did OK
Watt - 5 Poor by his standards .kept losing the ball
Vetokele - 3 Abject performance and not at his best at all with no hold up play.
Church - 5 Tried very hard when he came on
Up against very good side but made them look better by capitulating the game in the 1st 11 minutes with the second goal a disaster from a bad pass inside instead of up the line.Lets be realistic ..near the bottom 3 in Feb and ended up 12th so it could have been a lot worse !!
But if that's the only criterion, why are we doing individual marks at all?
In any event, it doesn't help me. Does the mark relate to some notional average performance for a player in a certain position in our league? Or does it relate to how an individual player performed against their perceived "normal" performance? For example, would a "normal" Ronaldo get an 8 or should he get a 5.5 because he did nothing outstanding compared with his usual superb efforts? Or would Ronaldo and Messi always be a 10 and lesser mortals would be some way below that?
So, back to actuality: what is a six for Johnson's performance yesterday? Does it indicate that he was better than either his average; a notional average performance for a player in his position in our league; or a six compared with, say, Chiellini?
I don't have any issues with how anybody marks, I'm just don't understand how I am supposed to mark anybody unless I know what the parameters are. Just tell me what I'm marking against and I'll think about joining in. Or don't you know either?
In a game where we lose at home by 3 goals...
One of our players, a striker, early on, scores a screamer if a free kick from 25 yards.
Later, we get a free kick in side our own half. The same player sees the keeper off his line, and chips him from 75 yards.
Then late on, the same player picks up the ball in his own half, sets off on a slaloming run, beats six players, dummies the keeper to stroke the ball into the empty net for his hat-trick...
At the other end, the goal keeper lets 4 under his body, punches one corner into his own goal, and to round it off, in an attempt to start a quick counter attack, throws the ball into his own net.
We have had only 3 shots on target, (all by one player) and only 25% possession.
You would seriously give them both 4 out of 10? One is doing his job, the other isn't.
Isn't more logical to give the striker 10, and the keeper 1.
Does that make sense?
Solly 6
Fox 6
Johnson 4 no pace
Ben Haim 1 contemptible
Gudmundsson 1 his agent must have had a word at halftime cos he couldn't get a game with my pub team based on his first 45 minutes of hiding, bottling challenges and giving the ball away, ran around a bit 2nd half but the closest he's gonna get to the PL is playing FIFA on h is playstation
Diarra 6 honest but nothing special
Buyens 1 always pulls his punches never gives us his best Sordell levels of cynicism. Adieu Yoni et ne retourne jamias, conasse!
Bulot 6 quieter game
Watt 6
Vetokele not fair to rate a player who was clearly too injured to start
Church 5 runs around with commitment but he doesn't have the tools at this level
Gomez n/a mystifying why he didn't start - clearly not a full back
Eagles n/a no discernible interest or effort
Solly 5
Fox 6.5
Johnson 5.5
Ben Haim 9.5 (rectifying previous poster's idiocy)
Gudmundsson 10 (rectifying previous poster's idiocy)
Diarra 7.5 MOM
Buyens 9 (rectifying previous poster's idiocy)
Bulot 7
Watt 6
Vetokele 5
Church 5.5
Solly - 5 Poor today
Fox - 5 Did OK ish
So, according to those marks, that individual saw Solly and Fox as performing at the same level yesterday presumably. (Which, in my view, is reasonable). But one was described as OK and the other poor.
So, I assume that people must factor in their own perceptions of how well or otherwise they believe a player does generally and therefore should be doing in a particular match and weight there result accordingly.
Is that right?
And should it be?
Everybody has emotions. Is everyone in the whole world equally your friend?
If there was a fire in your house, would you save a loved one first, or a complete stranger who had just walked through the door.
If you are going to turn into Terminator, please let me know so I can avoid you...