Scunthorpe Player Ratings

[sheffield_fox]

Scunthorpe United 1-2 Leicester City

If you went to the game, please vote atwww.player-ratings.com/rate. Thanks.

Discuss below.

 

[beaumontfox]

I want to watch the 'highlights' to see what our defending was like for their goal first......

 

[Hazzman]

Hendo 6

Edworthy 6
Mattock 2
Tunchev The King 8
Mozza 6

Dyer 7
Oaks 7
Wan King 6
Berner 7

Fryatt 7
Campbell 5

Powell 6
Hobbs 6

Mine were some'ut like that.

 

[beaumontfox]

Hendo 5
Edworthy 5
Mattock 4
Tunchev 6
Morrison 6
Dyer 7
Oaks 6
King 5
Berner 6
Fryatt 6
Campbell 5

Powell 5
Hobbs 5

 

[sheffield_fox]

Don't forget to leave your votes at www.player-ratings.com/rate if you went to the game. Results will be posted tomorrow.

 

[TommyK]

Hendo 5
Edworthy 5
Mattock 4
Tunchev 6
Morrison 6
Dyer 7
Oaks 6
King 5
Berner 6
Fryatt 6
Campbell 5

Powell 5
Hobbs 5

Granted we weren't great in the second half, but they seem like very harsh ratings to me.

Hendo 6
Edworthy 6
Mattock 6
Tunchev 8
Morrison 7
Dyer 7
Oaks 6
King 6 - poor apart from the goal - but what a goal!
Berner first half 8 - second half 6 = 7.
Fryatt 6
Campbell 4

Powell 5
Hobbs 5

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

From the RL commentary it would appear to be Dyer 8, Tunchev 8, Henderson 8, then the rest!

 

[beaumontfox]

Granted we weren't great in the second half, but they seem like very harsh ratings to me.

Hendo 6
Edworthy 6
Mattock 6
Tunchev 8
Morrison 7
Dyer 7
Oaks 6
King 6 - poor apart from the goal - but what a goal!
Berner first half 8 - second half 6 = 7.
Fryatt 6
Campbell 4

Powell 5
Hobbs 5

Harsh?!

FFS... it was an AVERAGE performance......which let's face, is all we need week in week out to get promoted.

Average means 5 or 6.

We are NOT putting in performances which are seeing players deserve 7s or 8s every week.

I start my ratings at 5.....they either do a lot better than adequate, worse or, funnily enough, do an adequate enough job.

 

[David Gwilliam]

Hendo 6

Edworthy 6
Mattock 2
Tunchev The King 8
Mozza 6

Dyer 7
Oaks 7
Wan King 6
Berner 7

Fryatt 7
Campbell 5

Powell 6
Hobbs 6

Mine were some'ut like that.

It is so interesting to get these rankings. I do, however, think it is a pity to make such a cheap jibe about Andy King. He is a young lad who has done well to force his way into the team ahead of more experienced players such as Kishishev and Weso. According to the rankings he was about average for a team that won away from home and better than the young England fullback and Leicester's expensive striker. What is more he scored the winning goal. Give the young lad a break.

 

[Si Nick]

It is so interesting to get these rankings. I do, however, think it is a pity to make such a cheap jibe about Andy King. He is a young lad who has done well to force his way into the team ahead of more experienced players such as Kishishev and Weso. According to the rankings he was about average for a team that won away from home and better than the young England fullback and Leicester's expensive striker. What is more he scored the winning goal. Give the young lad a break.

Trouble is you see, there seems to be a bunch of City fans who have to have at least 2 players to pick on.

With Fryatt scoring 15 goals it makes him a difficult target, so Howard seems to be on first position currently.

2nd target seems to be King, altho a few seem to have decided Kisnorbo was to blame for the poor run.

Meanwhile they seem to have ignored the 2 players on their worst form in the last month, which have been Gradel (perhaps can't pick on him due to early season hero worship) & Hobbs (who struggled at right back)

Luckily Nigel Peason knows what he is doing, hence his team selections

 

[beaumontfox]

Trust me, I haven't 'ignored' Hobbs.

As for Gradel, his loss of form probably has more to do with family stuff going on than anything else, He has had a lot to deal with the past few months.
So I'll cut him just a bit of slack in that respect.

 

[City Fan]

Harsh?!

FFS... it was an AVERAGE performance......which let's face, is all we need week in week out to get promoted.

Average means 5 or 6.

We are NOT putting in performances which are seeing players deserve 7s or 8s every week.

I start my ratings at 5.....they either do a lot better than adequate, worse or, funnily enough, do an adequate enough job.

I think the problem is, a lot of people do their ratings based on Football Manager. I personally think 5 is an average performance, nothing special. Whereas on FM, a 5 is pretty shit and a 6/7 is ok.

 

[beaumontfox]

Ah!

I should start playing FM then.......as I've obviously been doing things wrong so far.:icon_roll

 

[highland fox]

Trust me, I haven't 'ignored' Hobbs.

As for Gradel, his loss of form probably has more to do with family stuff going on than anything else, He has had a lot to deal with the past few months.
So I'll cut him just a bit of slack in that respect.

Has he ever had 'form'? Has he proved himself in a LCFC shirt? It might jus be that he is not as good as people think he is.

 

[Matt_B]

Has he ever had 'form'? Has he proved himself in a LCFC shirt? It might jus be that he is not as good as people think he is.

He did look very good for the first few games of the season, though granted it was too short to count as "form". I think he is playing with 0 confidence at the moment.

 

[TommyK]

Harsh?!

FFS... it was an AVERAGE performance......which let's face, is all we need week in week out to get promoted.

Average means 5 or 6.

We are NOT putting in performances which are seeing players deserve 7s or 8s every week.

I start my ratings at 5.....they either do a lot better than adequate, worse or, funnily enough, do an adequate enough job.

Yeah, the second half wasn't great and we've definitely passed the ball better this season. But Tunchev and Morrison 6s? Scuny put us under pressure in the second half, but how many chances did they have. Any?. Mainly down to these two being excellent. I thought it was a battling performance that we were always going to need against them.

 

[Hazzman]

It's nothing to do with 'picking on' players, they are grown blokes, if they play crap, they get criticised. Simple. Lordy.

 

[Darth Vodka]

the thing about the ratings is they obviously have to be weighted on a particular assessor's natural average

if (like beaumont) you are grading them against Champions' League players...you're inclined to mark lowly

if you are marking them on how they play relative to the whole division...we will be getting the odd nine

 

[Blue Maniac]

if (like beaumont) you are grading them against Champions' League players...

Seriously though, I think BF's quite fair. I'd say 5 is the expected minimum, 4 is poor, 6 just above average, but I'm sure a few people use scales that are one higher. Understandable given the popularity of a certain football management game which, despite months of development, still manages to get released every year as an unfinished, buggy piece of crap and isn't remotely playable until the final patch, by which time the hype has already started for its replacement. Sorry, I've digressed.

Anyway, as long as we all agree 10 is higher than 1 I think can all understand each other's systems :icon_bigg

 

[Melton Fox]

I think can all understand each other's systems :icon_bigg

The systems are OK, it's the opinions that are usually hard to believe.