Cheltenham Player Ratings
- Thread starter sheffield_fox
- Start date
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase
- Status
No.6 Muzzy Izzet...
Active Member
I'd more or less agree with your ratings. But I thought King played much better, like Oakley, in the second half - which was the best I've seen him play. I'd still give him a 7, though.
DesertFox
Well-Known Member
I may be being pedantic - I am being pedantic - but surely 5 = average
On a scale of 0 to 10, 5 is in the middle. 6 is above average.
But it seems that people will give a player 6 just for making it onto the pitch.
Melton Fox
Dancing Queen
That's the sytem I use. If a player does his job, nothing more, nothing less, I'll give him a 5.
If a striker doesn't score, he'll get marked down. If he misses lots of chances he'll get marked down further. If he doesn't score but has to do a lot of work in midfield because they are poor, I'll probably mark him up.
Seems some people mark a striker highly just for having the ball a lot.
If a striker doesn't score, he'll get marked down. If he misses lots of chances he'll get marked down further. If he doesn't score but has to do a lot of work in midfield because they are poor, I'll probably mark him up.
Seems some people mark a striker highly just for having the ball a lot.
Durham Fox
El Dude Brother.
I don't agree, King is our poorest player currently. He has a decent right foot and nearly scored again yesterday from outside the box. That apart I don't rate him at all.
SwedeFox
Well-Known Member
Yes, I think it has to do with Championship Manager/Football Manager where 6 is middle (if you're on the pitch for five seconds then you get a 6). So I think many ratings are based on that.
Durham Fox
El Dude Brother.
and mine, 5 is below par to me
Hazzman
New Member
I may be being pedantic - I am being pedantic - but surely 5 = average
I suppose it all comes down to the Football Manager/Sun Team way of rating. He was okay and certainly did his job but in his own performance isn't his best afternoon.
His ball for Dyer's second was a peach though.
Hazzman
New Member
Too weak in the tackle (which will start to tell when the pitches get heavier), disappears for long spells of the game, likes passing square a lot.
Last edited:
Boy Genius
Banned
I have been saying this for a while now. King is very poor. It's only because we are doing well his inability is not being highlighted. Most of his passes go astray and he goes missing for long periods.
beaumontfox
New Member
I agree.
Definitely our weakest player in the first month.
Definitely our weakest player in the first month.
Melton Fox
Dancing Queen
This is brilliant!!!!!
We are now good enough to debate if we have any shit players, and if so who's the shittest.
Much better than last season when we lording Iain Hume for scoring once in every 97 shots.
We are now good enough to debate if we have any shit players, and if so who's the shittest.
Much better than last season when we lording Iain Hume for scoring once in every 97 shots.
DesertFox
Well-Known Member
Lauding.
Yorkshire Vixen
Active Member
Interestingly Hume scored at the weekend and it was commented on that he looked a better player playing on the wing! Who would have thought
well he has had plenty of practice
- Status
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Liverpool | 22 | 53 |
| 2 | Arsenal | 23 | 47 |
| 3 | Nottm F | 23 | 44 |
| 4 | Manchester C | 23 | 41 |
| 5 | Newcastle | 23 | 41 |
| 6 | Chelsea | 23 | 40 |
| 7 | Bournemouth | 23 | 40 |
| 8 | Aston Villa | 23 | 37 |
| 9 | Brighton | 23 | 34 |
| 10 | Fulham | 23 | 33 |
| 11 | Brentford | 23 | 31 |
| 12 | Manchester U | 23 | 29 |
| 13 | Palace | 23 | 27 |
| 14 | West Ham | 23 | 27 |
| 15 | Tottenham | 23 | 24 |
| 16 | Everton | 22 | 23 |
| 17 | Leicester | 23 | 17 |
| 18 | Wolves | 23 | 16 |
| 19 | Ipswich | 23 | 16 |
| 20 | Southampton | 23 | 6 |
