Ratings Results vs Stockport County

[Stuliasz]

Jack Hobbs claimed his second man of the match award in as many matches as once again he kept the Stockport strikers at bay with a sterling defensive performance.

It seems the defence caught the eye of the fans once again as fellow centre back Michael Morrison finished as runner up, with striker Matty Fryatt rounding off the top three.

The main disappointment of the match was captain Matt Oakley who struggled to find too many good ratings from the fans this week. Full results below:

TOTAL VOTES: 49 (better turnout than the home game in the week so thanks again people!)

Player Awards:

Man of the Match: Jack Hobbs - 7.27

Flop of the Match: Matt Oakley - 5.69

Best Defender: Jack Hobbs - 7.27

Best Midfielder: Lloyd Dyer - 6.67

Best Striker: Matty Fryatt - 6.94

Full Ratings:

1. Jack Hobbs - 7.27

2. Michael Morrison - 7.04

3. Matty Fryatt - 6.94

4. Steve Howard - 6.86

5. Kerrea Gilbert / Lloyd Dyer - 6.67

7. Aleksander Tunchev - 6.43

8. Andy King - 6.24

9. Paul Dickov - 6.18

10. Paul Henderson - 6.04

11. Max Gradel - 6.00

12. Matt Oakley - 5.69

Voter Awards:

Top Voters: NSLL / Bocadillo / Halfsy - 6.50

Most Generous Voter: 1st - act smiley / Ash Davidson - 7.17; 2nd - spirefox / MancFox - 7.08; 3rd - kieran / Joeyb / maccfox - 7.00

Harshest Voter: 1st - rio lincon - 5.42; 2nd - Jacko Walters - 5.50; 3rd - m. hunt - 5.58

Thank you again to everyone who voted.

[Simi]

Seems the Fryatt fan-boys are out in force stilll, how he got a better average rating than Howard I will never know.

[Stuliasz]

Just a quick note to apologise for the crudeness of the forms at the moment. The full version of the site is currently in development and should hopefully have a system that will filter out the voters who try to skew the whole voting system or vote under obscene names. The people who have done either of these things have not had their votes counted.

[Joe.]

It continues...

[Thracian]

Jack Hobbs claimed his second man of the match award in as many matches as once again he kept the Stockport strikers at bay with a sterling defensive performance.

It seems the defence caught the eye of the fans once again as fellow centre back Michael Morrison finished as runner up, with striker Matty Fryatt rounding off the top three.

The main disappointment of the match was captain Matt Oakley who struggled to find too many good ratings from the fans this week. Full results below:

TOTAL VOTES: 49 (better turnout than the home game in the week so thanks again people!)

Player Awards:

Man of the Match: Jack Hobbs - 7.27

Flop of the Match: Matt Oakley - 5.69

Best Defender: Jack Hobbs - 7.27

Best Midfielder: Lloyd Dyer - 6.67

Best Striker: Matty Fryatt - 6.94

Full Ratings:

1. Jack Hobbs - 7.27

2. Michael Morrison - 7.04

3. Matty Fryatt - 6.94

4. Steve Howard - 6.86

5. Kerrea Gilbert / Lloyd Dyer - 6.67

7. Aleksander Tunchev - 6.43

8. Andy King - 6.24

9. Paul Dickov - 6.18

10. Paul Henderson - 6.04

11. Max Gradel - 6.00

12. Matt Oakley - 5.69

Voter Awards:

Top Voters: NSLL / Bocadillo / Halfsy - 6.50

Most Generous Voter: 1st - act smiley / Ash Davidson - 7.17; 2nd - spirefox / MancFox - 7.08; 3rd - kieran / Joeyb / maccfox - 7.00

Harshest Voter: 1st - rio lincon - 5.42; 2nd - Jacko Walters - 5.50; 3rd - m. hunt - 5.58

Thank you again to everyone who voted.

A lot of things make no sense whatsoever in that lot. Dickov above Oakley, or indeed anyone, for a start because Dickov did sod all.

Tunchev made the best of a bad situation but there was no way he played well or anywhere near as well as King or Oakley.

[Joe.]

How did Max Gradel still manage an average rating of 6?!

Come on Foxestalk, sort yourselves out.

[syston_fox]

I dont think Oakley was that bad actually. Tracking back and closing down I think he did very little wrong and really helped with our second half domination. It was just in the final third that he seemed to falter and I think that's what his rating has been based on by many people.

[Thracian]

Voting Oakley Flop of the Match tests the credence of the FoxesTalk player ratings. He played 90 minutes of an away game we probably dominated for 65 minutes. He was at the heart of a team which closed down the opposition and regained possession so fast that the opposing manager commented on it after his team had been restricted to barely a single self-created chance.

Dickov comes on for the closing stages, plays on the right and contributes sweet FA that I can remember yet gets ranked above Oakley. I thought I was being kind giving Dicko 4.5 or something similar, knowing how people hate me to slaughter anyone before they'd had a chance to settle.

Mind you Kingy gets slaughtered the first time he takes free kicks but that's another subject. Perhaps we should fly Clemence in from sick bay to take em.

[Hullfox]

I dont think Oakley was that bad actually. Tracking back and closing down I think he did very little wrong and really helped with our second half domination. It was just in the final third that he seemed to falter and I think that's what his rating has been based on by many people.

I agree with you and Thrach on this.

Oakley for my money earned his place in "team of the day".

Unfortunately as well we know, there will always be those who cannot see the reality of individual performances on a match by match basis and will vote with their heart rather than their heads.

However, that's not to say that people are not allowed their opinion, it would be interesting however to see certain people's ratings across a period of time to see whether they actually favour specific players. To be fair, we would all probably be guilty of an element of bias in some way.

[Thracian]

I agree with you and Thrach on this.

Oakley for my money earned his place in "team of the day".

Unfortunately as well we know, there will always be those who cannot see the reality of individual performances on a match by match basis and will vote with their heart rather than their heads.

However, that's not to say that people are not allowed their opinion, it would be interesting however to see certain people's ratings across a period of time to see whether they actually favour specific players. To be fair, we would all probably be guilty of an element of bias in some way.

Now there's a FoxesTalk collectors item!

[Hullfox]

Voting Oakley Flop of the Match tests the credence of the FoxesTalk player ratings. He played 90 minutes of an away game we probably dominated for 65 minutes. He was at the heart of a team which closed down the opposition and regained possession so fast that the opposing manager commented on it after his team had been restricted to barely a single self-created chance.

Dickov comes on for the closing stages, plays on the right and contributes sweet FA that I can remember yet gets ranked above Oakley. I thought I was being kind giving him 4.5 or something similar, knowing how people hate me to slaughter anyone before they'd had a chance to settle.

Mind you Kingy gets slaughtered the first time he takes free kicks but that's another subject. Perhaps we should fly Clemence in from sick bay to take em.

To be fair Thrach, I didn't think Kingy played overly well. True he did make a couple of sublime contributions but not enough for me. Problem is when you take dead ball kicks, you're in the shop window. They constitute a beginning of a passage of play and therefore are easier to remember than a run off the ball or a simple but effective pass.

I don't think that he'll be too worried about what we say though, I've a feeling that Big Nige and his team will be giving him all the right messages.

[Hullfox]

Now there's a FoxesTalk collectors item!

No that came earlier when you talked sense!

[Lillehamring]

I agree with you and Thrach on this.

Oakley for my money earned his place in "team of the day".

Unfortunately as well we know, there will always be those who cannot see the reality of individual performances on a match by match basis and will vote with their heart rather than their heads.

However, that's not to say that people are not allowed their opinion, it would be interesting however to see certain people's ratings across a period of time to see whether they actually favour specific players. To be fair, we would all probably be guilty of an element of bias in some way.

for those who haven't seen it---

[Head Honcho]

Voting Oakley Flop of the Match tests the credence of the FoxesTalk player ratings. He played 90 minutes of an away game we probably dominated for 65 minutes. He was at the heart of a team which closed down the opposition and regained possession so fast that the opposing manager commented on it after his team had been restricted to barely a single self-created chance.

Dickov comes on for the closing stages, plays on the right and contributes sweet FA that I can remember yet gets ranked above Oakley. I thought I was being kind giving Dicko 4.5 or something similar, knowing how people hate me to slaughter anyone before they'd had a chance to settle.

Mind you Kingy gets slaughtered the first time he takes free kicks but that's another subject. Perhaps we should fly Clemence in from sick bay to take em.

Flop of the match and team of the day Too much for some voters methinks

[Asha]

A lot of things make no sense whatsoever in that lot.

Some things do though.

Top Voters: NSLL

[Bert]

Oakley defientley wasn't the flop of the day, he wasn't brilliant but there were worse performers!

[Daggers]

sheffield_fox - you are ace.

[Stuliasz]

Oakley defientley wasn't the flop of the day, he wasn't brilliant but there were worse performers!

It's certainly been interesting seeing the comments and then the overall ratings. As you can see, Oakley's flop rating was pretty comfortable and there was a decent quantity of ratings to confirm it, but not one person has come on yet and agreed with it. Surely based on that, most of the people who did vote do agree with it so where are they?

[Daggers]

It's certainly been interesting seeing the comments and then the overall ratings. As you can see, Oakley's flop rating was pretty comfortable and there was a decent quantity of ratings to confirm it, but not one person has come on yet and agreed with it. Surely based on that, most of the people who did vote do agree with it so where are they?

Maybe they are just a bunch of scallywags from Talkingballs?

[Bert]

It's certainly been interesting seeing the comments and then the overall ratings. As you can see, Oakley's flop rating was pretty comfortable and there was a decent quantity of ratings to confirm it, but not one person has come on yet and agreed with it. Surely based on that, most of the people who did vote do agree with it so where are they?

I gave him a 6. Wasn't great but was better than average.

Thanks for setting this all back up again though.

[RowlattsFox]

I can't remember the exact rating but I gave Oakley a relatively low score, but I gave King and Gradel low-ish scores as well and Dyer got an above average rating. I thought our midfield was poor for about 70 minutes and only took control in the last 20 minutes and that was more down to King and Dyer than Oakley.

Oakley had a mixed game at best in my opinion, one good thing followed by a couple of bad things, was caught in possesion a number of times. He wasn't the worst performer though, that should have been Gradel.

[Head Honcho]

It's certainly been interesting seeing the comments and then the overall ratings. As you can see, Oakley's flop rating was pretty comfortable and there was a decent quantity of ratings to confirm it, but not one person has come on yet and agreed with it. Surely based on that, most of the people who did vote do agree with it so where are they?

It's obvious that some voters are using a general opinion they have of a player when they vote instead of rating them for what they've done on the pitch for that match. As the season progresses this will improve I'd guess. I hope it does anyway.

[Bert]

It's obvious that some voters are using a general opinion they have of a player when they vote instead of rating them for what they've done on the pitch for that match. As the season progresses this will improve I'd guess. I hope it does anyway.

Yep.

I'm biased toward some players but I've certainly tried to keep my ratings fair.

[Joe.]

I agree with you and Thrach on this.

Oakley for my money earned his place in "team of the day".

Unfortunately as well we know, there will always be those who cannot see the reality of individual performances on a match by match basis and will vote with their heart rather than their heads.

However, that's not to say that people are not allowed their opinion, it would be interesting however to see certain people's ratings across a period of time to see whether they actually favour specific players. To be fair, we would all probably be guilty of an element of bias in some way.

This man speaks the truth.

For starters, I was one of those who did happen to mark Oakley with low ratings based on Saturday's game. I didn't feel he had the influence that he should have had on the game, he lacked creativity and he also looked poor in the tackle in my opinion.

To your point in bold, I couldn't agree more with this. Take Max Gradel's performance on Saturday. I gave him a 4, the average showed 6. What did he do for the team on Saturday? Absolutely nothing because Stockport knew exactly what to do with him. Add this to a petulant booking and you get a poor mark. Yet some people still proceed to give him a high grade just because he is Max Gradel and it would be wrong to give him a low rating wouldn't it?

I notice every week that the same people vote only on what the "group norm" tends to be and I wish people would actually say what they think sometimes with regards to player ratings.

[lildave3]

How the **** is Fryatt ahead of Howard on there.

Behave voters.