Player ratings - Wolves (A)

[Foolg]

Always find it bizarre people rate goalkeepers low because they had nothing to do. Either start from ten and deduct points for mistakes or don't rate at all as the sensible RM Taylor has done.

Where does a 6.5 come from for a quiet day ?

What a ridiculous comment.

He didn't make a mistake, but he had next to nothing to do. However, there is absolutely no way he deserves a 10/10.

You could argue half the players didn't make many mistakes, but i wouldn't give them 9s and 10's.

 

[One Love]

No...you start ( as ' One Teddy Maybank ' rightly says ) from a base point of average..i.e.. 6.

Surely a base point of average would be 5?

 

[Machiavelli]

Saw it on a stream:

Stockdale 7 excellent in what he did, although that wasn't much
Bruno 8 MotM sheer class
Dunk 6 OK
Greer 6 same
Bong 6 quieter game
Rosenoir 6 ditto
Kayal 6 our passing wasn't crisp enough today, and it's the central midfielders have to cop more of the flak for that
Stephens 6 ditto
KLL 6 see Bong
Murphy 7.5 really exciting player, won a penalty but, at times, he just gets his head down when he could look around more often; that said, really don't want to stop him from running at the opposition, as this really frightens them
Hemed 5 missed pen and follow-up, not his best half

Manu 6 took a kick in the mouth which affected him, looks quick, strong and lively, but thought he should have done better with the gilt-edged chance he had
Zamora 5.5 didn't do much

CH said in his post-match comments that as Wolves didn't have a midweek fixture they had more energy, which might explain why we weren't quite as good as in other games. Wolves have some decent players though, and let's hope we can look back at this at the end of the season as a point gained.

 

[Superphil]

Surely a base point of average would be 5?

Indeed, basic maths.

If 6 is average, then the top mark would be 12. That might be the way they do it in Norfolk, but round here we tend to work in base 10.

 

[Barnham Seagull]

Stockdale - 6

Bruno - 7
Greer - 6.5
Dunk - 7
Bong - 6

Rosenior - 6
Stephens - 7
Kayal - 6
Murphy - 6.5
LuaLua - 5

Hemed - 5

Elvis - 6
Zamora - 5

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Missed Baldock's movement?

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Surely a base point of average would be 5?

Of course, but as has been highlighted, historically newspapers etc, used 6 as the mark for an average performance.

At the end of the day each to their own.

 

[Acker79]

Any more ratings?

 

[clapham_gull]

What a ridiculous comment.

He didn't make a mistake, but he had next to nothing to do. However, there is absolutely no way he deserves a 10/10.

You could argue half the players didn't make many mistakes, but i wouldn't give them 9s and 10's.

It's hardly "ridiculous" - more a subject for debate.

How on earth can someone judge a goalkeeper with 6.5 who had nothing to do. It says absolutely nothing about how they are communicating with their defence, or what has gone on the week before to enable the goalkeeper to have "nothing to do".

It's always goalkeepers on here. Low scores since they didn't have a save to make. So on that basis Goalkeepers can only get a good mark if others in the team have made mistakes that allow the opposition to get space to shoot ?

At supporters clubs meetings over the years have spoken to a number of players / coaches regarding the crowds reaction to players performances. One thing that sings out is that crowds react to players that make mistakes but little to those that "hide". The frustration on the coaching side is that often players "making mistakes" is that they are simply carrying out instructions a lot of the time, an example being a goalkeeper with supposed "bad distribution" who has actually been instructed by the coaching staff to drop the ball in a small area where it will often go out but may just often initiate an attack.

Goalkeepers can't hide but if they have "nothing to do" because of the effectiveness of other players or the ineffectiveness of the opposition that equals a low score on NSC.

Ok - whatever you think is a normalised scoring system.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Of course, but as has been highlighted, historically newspapers etc, used 6 as the mark for an average performance.

At the end of the day each to their own.

Exactly.
If you use 5 as the average then a lot of players would get 3's ( poor ) and 4's ( below average ) and those type of marks are clearly too low.
Conversely, a mark of 6 would be deemed good and it would be difficult to give anyone a 9 ( unless it was scoring five goals in a Champions League Final!! )
The accepted system for awarding points at present sees a closer range of scoring as opposed to using 5 as an average, when you would regularly see a wider range of marks.

 

[Acker79]

How on earth can someone judge a goalkeeper with 6.5 who had nothing to do. It says absolutely nothing about how they are communicating with their defence, or what has gone on the week before to enable the goalkeeper to have "nothing to do".

But what has gone on the week before has nothing to do with how players are rated. No one ever says anything like "JFC awful performance today, would have been a 3, but he trained really well all week, and he was really nice at a club shop signing, so 9". They are judged by their contribution to the match (and often by the rating fan's own biases - their preferred style of football, their favourite players, etc.)

You make a good argument for why it's unfair to mark goalkeepers low when they have nothing to do, but you don't make a convincing argument for why you should mark them high when they have had 'nothing to do'.

10/10 is perfection. How much does an outfield player have to contribute to get a 10? Is shouting to Greer "clear it!" or "man on", or consistently putting the ball out of play because it's 'roughly in the area of where he was supposed to kick it' really worth a rating of perfection when outfield players have so much more to do to earn such a rating?

I think if your argument was simply 'it's unfair to mark keepers so low' you would have more support, but 'we should give someone who contributed very little to the game 10/10 as a default' is the sort of comment that will get a response such as Foolg's.

Goalkeepers can't hide but if they have "nothing to do" because of the effectiveness of other players or the ineffectiveness of the opposition that equals a low score on NSC.

I honestly don't think it's generally as low as you think. There may be occasional posters who rate him particularly low (in comparison to the team's performance overall) for nothing to do, but those posters generally also mark him lower than other posters when he has contributed a lot, and generally his rating is in keeping with the general rating for that game. So, when we have a disappointing game in which he has little to do (such as v Wolves) he will get a lower mark, when we have a great game in which he has little to do, he often gets higher marks.

 

[Acker79]

Average Ratings

Highest Rated:
Bruno 7.50 (96mins, 6 votes)

The Rest:
Dunk 7.17 (96mins, 6 votes)
Murphy 6.96 (96mins, 6 votes)
Stephens 6.83 (96mins, 6 votes)
Greer 6.75 (96mins, 6 votes)
Kayal 6.75 (96mins, 6 votes)
Bong 6.33 (96mins, 6 votes)
Stockdale 6.30 (96mins, 5 votes)
Rosenior 6.17 (96mins, 6 votes)
>Manu 6.08 (50mins, 6 votes)
>Zamora 5.70 (18mins, 5 votes)
<Lualua 5.58 (78mins, 6 votes)
<Hemed 5.33 (46mins, 6 votes)


Squad average: 6.42