Hammonds conract offer - speculation

[hans kraay fan club]

Ok, at last, a fair point. Firstly, I do my ratings a bit different to most on here, which make it look like I'm being 'harsher.' I'm not. I use 5 as a base mark, which is an AVERAGE performance. A few good things, a few not so good, and generally just an average contribution to the match. Most people, like the newspapers do, award 6 and 7 to average players, with only 8,9, and 10 for GOOD performances. As far as I'm concerned, a player who gets a 6 from me has played well and done slightly more than expected. A 3 to you is obviously more shocking than it is to me.

So, to bring that onto Hammond specifically, I felt he didn't contribute as much to the game as he should have done, and I levelled the "anonymous" criticism at him - not for the first time. Let's make it clear, I have NEVER watched Dean Hammond and thought "oh my god, he's having a SHOCKER, we need to get him off the pitch now before he costs us any more goals/points." He's not like that. What I do have an issue with is that he can easily go missing from games for HUGE chunks - sometimes an entire half or more. That's what I thought on Tuesday. I didn't really notice him do anything, and what he did do was a little slow and ponderous. Maybe a 3 is overly harsh. Thinking about it, using my system, I probably should have awarded a 4, but certainly no more. However, if you really want to have a go at me for my OVERALL view of him, then you really need to look back through all my posts on him, when I generally give the opinion that he's a very good footballer for this league currently way out of form - nothing criminal in that, surely?

Except that your actually quote was;

Hammond 3 - anonymous as per f***ing usual

which to me suggests a great degree of pre-conception.

 

[Gazwag]

As far as I'm concerned, a player who gets a 6 from me has played well and done slightly more than expected. A 3 to you is obviously more shocking than it is to me.

So if Kuipers hadnt cost us two points against Yeovil he would have received an 8 or 9 rather than a 6 (joint MOM mark) from you

 

[hans kraay fan club]

. Otherwise, what you're saying is I may as well just type out some player ratings now and post them after every game regardless. That, my friend, is stupid.

Isn't it just?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

. I use 5 as a base mark, which is an AVERAGE performance. A few good things, a few not so good, and generally just an average contribution to the match.

I tend to give Kuipers a 6 in most games, which I deem to be a standard performance. That mark stays the same regardless of the team's result. .

Pre-conceived, and uneven. End of.

Owned? You wish.

 

[Hiney]

I don't tend to give 8, 9, or 10 unless I'm joking

So what's the point in giving ratings at all?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Marks out of 5 make more sense.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Not sure if my thread about setting a protocol for rating players might be helpful here?

http://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?t=116147

Some people thought I was trying to take the debate out of rating - I was merely trying to create a comparable base for rating. The debate about the quality of a performance can go on, but everyone would have a common understanding of what a "4" is for example.

Might help.

 

[cjd]

Absolute load of bo***cks.

If, as it's being hinted, you are Richard Hebbard, (alledgedly responsible for dishing out a 2 match ban to one of our supporters for alledgedly swearing), is it OK to say "f***" at the match , but miss out the letter "c", and just pronouncing it "FUK"....?