Match Ratings v the Cobblers

[Carlton_Pie]

I'd be interested to know that as well. If Fitz made some cracking saves, kept a clean sheet and produced his best performance in a long while, why does he only rate as 5.5?

They don't make sense...

Can a goalkeeper that keeps a clean sheet score 5.5 out of 10? What does he have to do to get 10 out of 10?

[Elite_Pie]

They don't make sense...

Can a goalkeeper that keeps a clean sheet score 5.5 out of 10? What does he have to do to get 10 out of 10?

I wasn't at the game, but I'd like to know what he did wrong to lose 4.5 marks. I'm not a fan of Fitz, but he appears to be the best we've got so a clean sheet is just what he needed. Maybe he looked dodgy in other parts of his game?

[countygump]

They don't make sense...

Can a goalkeeper that keeps a clean sheet score 5.5 out of 10? What does he have to do to get 10 out of 10?

Agreed. Tarkers ratings are a bit on the mean side.

[Elite_Pie]

Agreed. Tarkers ratings are a bit on the mean side.

I suppose it depends what his benchmark is. Whenever I do these ratings I always use 6/10 as being a standard, acceptable performance in that the player basically did what he was there to do. My rating of 5 is a bit under par, 7 is a bit over par, and 8 or more means a good to very good game.

[Carlton_Pie]

I suppose it depends what his benchmark is. Whenever I do these ratings I always use 6/10 as being a standard, acceptable performance in that the player basically did what he was there to do. My rating of 5 is a bit under par, 7 is a bit over par, and 8 or more means a good to very good game.

This..6 as an average

[tarquinbeech]

None of the players deserved better than a 5.5, as none of the players were better than average ie a 5.

On a scale of 0 to 10, zero being an abject failure and 10 being stella superstar.....our performance today was "average" at best ie a 4 for Tootle and Hewey and 4 players on 5.5.

Why didn't I score my joint MOM, Fitz, higher than 5.5?.......he ran out to collect a through-ball, had a misunderstanding with the covering Notts back, and almost ended up handling it outside the box....he also tried to launch the ball upfield and ending up hitting their attacker up the arse, again!....and on a third occasion he collected the ball, took 2 steps and dropped it again at the feet of a Cobblers player, and had to drop on a ball that he had already safely gathered!

Having said all that, he was a huge improvement on the last 5 or 6 games and I marked him accordingly.....Charlie and Stall put it more succinctly than myself "Fitz had a much better game, but the saves, and the punch, were saves that any competent keeper should be making"

[Carlton_Pie]

None of the players deserved better than a 5.5, as none of the players were better than average ie a 5.

On a scale of 0 to 10, zero being an abject failure and 10 being stella superstar.....our performance today was "average" at best ie a 4 for Tootle and Hewey and 4 players on 5.5.

Why didn't I score my joint MOM, Fitz, higher than 5.5?.......he ran out to collect a through-ball, had a misunderstanding with the covering Notts back, and almost ended up handling it outside the box....he also tried to launch the ball upfield and ending up hitting their attacker up the arse, again!....and on a third occasion he collected the ball, took 2 steps and dropped it again at the feet of a Cobblers player, and had to drop on a ball that he had already safely gathered!

Having said all that, he was a huge improvement on the last 5 or 6 games and I marked him accordingly.....Charlie and Stall put it more succinctly than myself "Fitz had a much better game, but the saves, and the punch, were saves that any competent keeper should be making"

At least i can understand where you are coming from but still believe your ratings are nonsense!

If you're expecting stella superstar performances from League 2 players, you're never gonna give much above a 6...hence your low scores I guess. The ratings should be relative to the standard of the players on the pitch, not a comparisons to Man City or Liverpool Galaticos.

For the standard level of an average League 2 goalkeeper how did Fitz perform today? With your average rating of 5, only slightly better?

[tarquinbeech]

I suppose it depends what his benchmark is. Whenever I do these ratings I always use 6/10 as being a standard, acceptable performance in that the player basically did what he was there to do. My rating of 5 is a bit under par, 7 is a bit over par, and 8 or more means a good to very good game.

Personally I use 5 as average ie half way to 10 ..........Notts today were "average" at best and if you took the average of my scores, I think that we would be around a 5.....the confusion appears to be that people think 6 is an average?......and how anyone can think that Fitz deserves a 10 is in cloud-cuckoo land....IMO

0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - FIVE - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10

I marked three players below a 5....and four players marginally above "average" ie at 5.5.....IMO nobody warranted a full point above "average"......has that explained it better to everyone?

[Elite_Pie]

0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - FIVE - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10

I marked three players below a 5....and four players marginally above "average" ie at 5.5.....IMO nobody warranted a full point above "average"......has that explained it better to everyone?

It's explained it from your point of view, but it's not something I can agree with. Firstly, 0/10 shouldn't be on the scale, as it's only ever used as a knee-jerk drama queen rating. It would really mean that every single thing the player did all game was bad, and nothing he did was in any way positive. My ratings are usually between 4 and 8 with the occasional 3 or 9 for a very poor or very good performance. On that 3-4-5-6-7-8-9 basis, 6 is the 'acceptable' or mid point. I always enjoy the ratings threads especially when I'm not at the game and appreciate any input, but it gets a bit confusing if we all have different standards

[tarquinbeech]

It's explained it from your point of view, but it's not something I can agree with. Firstly, 0/10 shouldn't be on the scale, as it's only ever used as a knee-jerk drama queen rating. It would really mean that every single thing the player did all game was bad, and nothing he did was in any way positive. My ratings are usually between 4 and 8 with the occasional 3 or 9 for a very poor or very good performance. On that 3-4-5-6-7-8-9 basis, 6 is the 'acceptable' or mid point. I always enjoy the ratings threads especially when I'm not at the game and appreciate any input, but it gets a bit confusing if we all have different standards

You occasionally talk twaddle, but this is a classic.....Elitus has decided that the ratings 0, 1, 2, and 10 shouldn't be used therefore somehow making 6 an average score?....hahahaha....brilliant

So by conveniently removing the 3 lowest scores, and only one higher....you are somehow proved correct, that 6 is an average of 10? incredible.....I understand that you were never the brightest at school........but you are an arrogant PRICK.

OK everyone, Forum announcement....Elite has decided, by manipulating numbers, that my scores are invalid and should not count.....I'm wasting my time, sorry to have wasted yours