lildave3 Posted 19 January 2008 Posted 19 January 2008 I'm still trying to work out how Laczko got five for playing half a game and hardly getting a touch. I didn't hear of him having a shot, making a decisive pass and some are complaining he didn't track back to help Mattock. So come on those who were there, what the hell did he do? Then what's wrong with a 5 if he wasn't very goof?
Fez of Mahrez Posted 19 January 2008 Posted 19 January 2008 I'm still trying to work out how Laczko got five for playing half a game and hardly getting a touch. I didn't hear of him having a shot, making a decisive pass and some are complaining he didn't track back to help Mattock. So come on those who were there, what the hell did he do? Same reason you always give Levi and Sheehan at least a 7, no matter how appalling they were.
Simon Posted 19 January 2008 Posted 19 January 2008 I'm still trying to work out how Laczko got five for playing half a game and hardly getting a touch. I didn't hear of him having a shot, making a decisive pass and some are complaining he didn't track back to help Mattock. So come on those who were there, what the hell did he do? Why is it you seem to want to go after the lad? You give King the benefit of the doubt due to injury/lack of fitness, so have the majority of people who saw Laczko today. Be fair.
Thracian Posted 19 January 2008 Posted 19 January 2008 Same reason you always give Levi and Sheehan at least a 7, no matter how appalling they were. What's that? Cos it seemed a perfectly reasonable and straightforward question.
Wezleylowski Posted 19 January 2008 Posted 19 January 2008 What's that? Cos it seemed a perfectly reasonable and straightforward question. fook Laczko he's guff, lets play Billy Mckay on the left
Fez of Mahrez Posted 19 January 2008 Posted 19 January 2008 What's that? Cos it seemed a perfectly reasonable and straightforward question. Couldn't answer it myself seeing as I gave him a 4 and ratings are in the eye of the beholder. Personally I wouldn't give below a 4 unless a fully-fit player looked like he couldn't be bothered or was exceptionally poor ability-wise on the day - and Laczko didn't fit any of those criteria today. He just wasn't fit and we didn't give him the ball in the right areas like we did against Coventry. He still looked to attack the box and got in one great position but the cross to him was wayward. Perhaps people feel there's just no need to get on his back, he's a 21-year-old who's just come to this country and has set incredibly high standards for himself after one of the best debuts I've ever seen by a Leicester player. Let's be optimistic rather than jumping on him as soon as he has a bad game.
Bert Posted 19 January 2008 Posted 19 January 2008 I'm still trying to work out how Laczko got five for playing half a game and hardly getting a touch. I didn't hear of him having a shot, making a decisive pass and some are complaining he didn't track back to help Mattock. So come on those who were there, what the hell did he do? Just being picky now. Not everyone gave him a five. We could start on how poor Andy King was today in the 13 minutes that he got, but i'm sure you'll make an excuse for him. Laczko was poor today, there's no denying that.
Thracian Posted 19 January 2008 Posted 19 January 2008 Why is it you seem to want to go after the lad?You give King the benefit of the doubt due to injury/lack of fitness, so have the majority of people who saw Laczko today. Be fair. Who's going after the lad? I sang his praises last week loudly enough, gave him a good mark of around 8 and no-one was complaining. Did he play half as well as last week or something better or worse? I'm just trying to get a handle of how the guy really played. Cos lots of people - and I don't mean anyone in particular get 2's and 3's for the sort of performance I got the impression Laczko gave today. So what are we having - two tier ratings depending on how fit you are, how long you've been here, where you come from, who signed you or what. If people who travel to the matches are going to be so holier than thou about being there they might at least try to give a fair reflection in the ratings. As for King I've no idea how he got 5 either. He was only on for a few minutes and almost gave a goal away when he lost possession. Okay, he was on a hiding to nothing in the circumstances but 5 or 6 suggests an average or close to average game to me. I'll stand convincing by people but neither guy sounded, from anything I've heard, that they deserved five's.
Bert Posted 19 January 2008 Posted 19 January 2008 Who's going after the lad? I sang his praises last week loudly enough, gave him a good mark of around 8 and no-one was complaining.Did he play half as well as last week or something better or worse? I'm just trying to get a handle of how the guy really played. Cos lots of people - and I don't mean anyone in particular get 2's and 3's for the sort of performance I got the impression Laczko gave today. So what are we having - two tier ratings depending on how fit you are, how long you've been here, where you come from, who signed you or what. If people who travel to the matches are going to be so holier than thou about being there they might at least try to give a fair reflection in the ratings. As for King I've no idea how he got 5 either. He was only on for a few minutes and almost gave a goal away when he lost possession. Okay, he was on a hiding to nothing in the circumstances but 5 or 6 suggests an average or close to average game to me. I'll stand convincing by people but neither guy sounded, from anything I've heard, that they deserved five's. Interesting points there. The main thing about Laczko was he was clearly un-fit, and because of this, he was always cautious, which meant everything he done was half-heartedly, even watching him shoot in the warm up you could see this.
Thracian Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 Just being picky now. Not everyone gave him a five. We could start on how poor Andy King was today in the 13 minutes that he got, but i'm sure you'll make an excuse for him. Laczko was poor today, there's no denying that. Why would I make excuses for King or anyone else? He's clearly gone downhill since Holloway's been here because he's not fully fit and the reason for that s because he's not getting enough competitive games.
potter3 Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 I'm still trying to work out how Laczko got five for playing half a game and hardly getting a touch. I didn't hear of him having a shot, making a decisive pass and some are complaining he didn't track back to help Mattock. So come on those who were there, what the hell did he do? I swear you want him to fail? From what i saw I'd have given him about a 5, the game just passed him by for the most part, he wasn't particlularly bad.
Alexikokopops Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 Alnwick 7 Some good saves, good catches. One interesting punch. The whole "incident" looked a bit handbaggy to be honest Stearman 8 Looked good, agree with Bert about the stupid turn thing but I'm feeling generous Mattock 6 Tucked in too much in the first half and gave Croft too much space at times, but made some good recovering challenges. Centrebacks should've told him to get out more N'Gotty 7 Steady away, good work at the end when they were piling on the pressure McAuley 6 Sometimes thinks he has more time on the ball than he does. Bit sloppy Bori 5 Not the same Bori against Coventry Laczko 4 Didn't look fit, shouldn't have started (ah, the benefit of hindsight), right decision to substitute at half time Wesolowski 6 Scurried around a lot, worked hard. Got to watch himself at times, got a little bit too niggly... Oakley 6 Looked good at times, but not enough today Hume 5 Ran around, that's about it Howard 6.5 Couldn't decide between a 6 or a 7, decided to sit on the fence. Textbook. Chambers 7 Looked good when he came on, especially since he was at left back Hay-les 7 Some nice touches, hit the post. Would've scored another chance if he had an extra yard on him (although to be fair he is about 72) I am inexplicably bias towards him though. King 5 Not his fault, didn't look too fit. Gave the ball away to them when we were in a good position, plus other times. Made a good challenge at one point I seem to remember in the right back position Ref was a bit of a tit, too many red boots on show. I think this might be the first time I've ever done player ratings. Too much seriousness, I'm going to go post some crap in General Chat.
Bert Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 Why would I make excuses for King or anyone else? He's clearly gone downhill since Holloway's been here because he's not fully fit and the reason for that s because he's not getting enough competitive games. You seem to have your favourites, as does everyone else. At this current time, and you surely must agree on some extent, we need experience more than anything, and i don't think we have a better pair than Oakley and Clem.
potter3 Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 Howard 6.5 Couldn't decide between a 6 or a 7, decided to sit on the fence. Textbook. Yeah the fence is quite comfy
Fez of Mahrez Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 So what are we having - two tier ratings depending on how fit you are, how long you've been here, where you come from, who signed you or what.If people who travel to the matches are going to be so holier than thou about being there they might at least try to give a fair reflection in the ratings. Perhaps ratings should be for individuals to give - not have to conform to your idea of them. Perhaps people do want to account for a player not being match-fit or being played out of position or whatever - which is fair enough. Or maybe Norwich had done their homework on him and put two men on him and closed him down, which we all know from the precedent you set for Levi last season means his lack of effect was not his fault whatsoever.
lildave3 Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 Perhaps ratings should be for individuals to give - not have to conform to your idea of them. Perhaps people do want to account for a player not being match-fit or being played out of position or whatever - which is fair enough. Or maybe Norwich had done their homework on him and put two men on him and closed him down, which we all know from the precedent you set for Levi last season means his lack of effect was not his fault whatsoever. Fez, how the **** did we forget Ajax.
Bert Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 Fez, how the **** did we forget Ajax. Pfft amateurs.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 Pfft amateurs. Who needs Ajax when you have Antalyaspor, Atlas and Aberystwyth Town?
Bert Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 Who needs Ajax when you have Antalyaspor, Atlas and Aberystwyth Town? Thats a shout, i used that one.
Daggers Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 Volumes I through XVII of Thracians opinions of Great Football Matches I have Never Seen will be issued on Wednesday the somethingth of March 2008 - he will be signing in Waterstones, apparently.
skinnydipper Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 I'm still trying to work out how Laczko got five for playing half a game and hardly getting a touch. I didn't hear of him having a shot, making a decisive pass and some are complaining he didn't track back to help Mattock. So come on those who were there, what the hell did he do? His hair looked quite nice. Added value =1.5.You had to be there to see it
Hullfox Posted 20 January 2008 Posted 20 January 2008 His hair looked quite nice. Added value =1.5.You had to be there to see it But it didn't sound nice on the radio so how comes he gets a 5 and nobody has even bothered marking Sheehan?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.