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

STATBANK: Charlton 2-0 Plymouth

many thanks to the102 Lifers who gave marks, I enjoyed that :)







Comments

  • Well done Lancs, as always. Great set of scores befitting a great performance, and harsh to pick out a MOTM, so glad it's someone who has been such a key part of the turnaround. Well earned first MOTM for him, though Lee surely will get one soon. 
  • 37% possession, worse pass completion rate, 100% goals.  There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
  • @lancashire lad Lavelle listed twice in the Discipline section? 
  • @lancashire lad Lavelle listed twice in the Discipline section? 
    thanks I'll correct my original
  • The ref getting an over generous mark, based on the result and team performance.

    The same could arguably said about Davison too
  • The ref getting an over generous mark, based on the result and team performance.

    The same could arguably said about Davison too
    Really the ref was good and when you compare him to the ones in last two games brilliant. 
    Davison deserves a decent mark because of the work rate he put in. Defending from the front!
  • They had 63% of the ball. Most people would  be surprised at that. If true they did bugger all with it really. 
  • The ref getting an over generous mark, based on the result and team performance.

    The same could arguably said about Davison too
    Usually the case with the ref (aside from last week). Davison would have been MOTM in 6 other league games with that score!
  • I thought Purrington had a good game but not an 8.63 game myself, got a lot of emotional post-game 10s because he scored 
  • But I guess that's the winning against a good team bonus. Marks get inflated. Gilbey 8.31 - yeah he made some decent forward runs but...I'm being very churlish here though. Enjoy the moment yadda yadda. But the Statbank must give a FAIR REFLECTION ;) 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Leuth said:
    But I guess that's the winning against a good team bonus. Marks get inflated. Gilbey 8.31 - yeah he made some decent forward runs but...I'm being very churlish here though. Enjoy the moment yadda yadda. But the Statbank must give a FAIR REFLECTION ;) 
    It gives a reflection based on all posters so it's as fair as you're gonna get.
  • Leuth said:
    But I guess that's the winning against a good team bonus. Marks get inflated. Gilbey 8.31 - yeah he made some decent forward runs but...I'm being very churlish here though. Enjoy the moment yadda yadda. But the Statbank must give a FAIR REFLECTION ;) 
    Yeah, but many posters mark players based on the emotion they feel, rather than the actual performance of the players they've watched.
    It's ever been thus.

    Lancs has often said that he reckons it averages out over a season.
    Anyway, as many have commented before, it's just opinions.




  • I know, I know. I guess this is payback for those who put in excellent performances when we lose or draw (it does happen)

    I reckon a lot of Purrington bonus marks come because people think he isn't a striker so when he scores it's like an amazing wondrous miracle or something. When will they realise he IS a striker ffs
  • Leuth said:
    I thought Purrington had a good game but not an 8.63 game myself, got a lot of emotional post-game 10s because he scored 
    He didnt do much, if anything wrong in the game overall I thought. 

    Agree 10s might be a bit much but that overall rating seems fair as it was best game for us by a long stretch. 
  • Cloudworm said:
    The ref getting an over generous mark, based on the result and team performance.

    The same could arguably said about Davison too
    Usually the case with the ref (aside from last week). Davison would have been MOTM in 6 other league games with that score!
    The top ref scores have been for the Doncaster 4-0 win and the Plymouth 2-0 win...
  • Leuth said:
    But I guess that's the winning against a good team bonus. Marks get inflated. Gilbey 8.31 - yeah he made some decent forward runs but...I'm being very churlish here though. Enjoy the moment yadda yadda. But the Statbank must give a FAIR REFLECTION ;) 
    We beat the division leaders comfortably so it's reasonable to assume at least some of them, if not all of them, played well without doing anything amazing like scoring.
  • 37% possession, worse pass completion rate, 100% goals.  There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
    A meaningless pass to the bloke next to you deep in your own half counts on stats but nowhere else. 
  • 37% possession, worse pass completion rate, 100% goals.  There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
    A meaningless pass to the bloke next to you deep in your own half counts on stats but nowhere else. 
    I agree. However our pressing and getting in their faces showed up. That happened to us a lot last year.
  • Like the studio commentators I think the possession stats are wrong....even Walsh said, Im not having that, was the statistician asleep half the game....I thought we had more of the ball first half and perhaps they shaded the second.
  • redman said:
    The ref getting an over generous mark, based on the result and team performance.

    The same could arguably said about Davison too
    Really the ref was good and when you compare him to the ones in last two games brilliant. 
    Davison deserves a decent mark because of the work rate he put in. Defending from the front!
    Was Davison actually worse last night than on Saturday?

    His score will be well down though...
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!