Corky Posted 31 August 2008 Posted 31 August 2008 Don't agree - but I totally agree with you on Hobbs, each time I see him I am more impressed. Reminds me of Matt Elliott- strong, confident on the ball and links well with the rest of the defence. He is a natural replacement for Carragher. We did exceptionally well to get Hobbs on loan, because there must have been a demand for him.
TrickyTrev Posted 31 August 2008 Posted 31 August 2008 Our first 4-0 away victory for 10 years and could have been more yet people are giving 6's and 7's for our atacking players and midfielders. I don't get it. I don't know what Fryatt and Oakley would have to do to get a good rating off of soem of you guys.
Simi Posted 31 August 2008 Posted 31 August 2008 Martin - 7 Gilbert - 7.5 Morrison - 8 Hobbs - 8 Tunch - 7 Dickov - 7 Oakley - 7.5 - Second half saved him, just needs to calm the game down at times and keep the ball. King - 8 - Direct and not afraid to shoot, also needs to get the ball down more though. Dyer - 9 Fryatt - 7 Howard - 8
Stuliasz Posted 31 August 2008 Author Posted 31 August 2008 Just to clarify the 'rules' that seemed to be causing a bit of confusion earlier: 1) Players can not be given ratings if they have played less than 15 minutes. The main reason I do this is because when you look at the overall picture if I allowed ratings for people who have been on the pitch for two minutes, they end up as valuable in the monthly/season awards as if they have played 90 minutes and I didn't think this was right. 2) The players have to have been on the pitch for at least a half of football or 45 minutes to qualify for the various match awards. The reason for this is that the awards are for Man/Flop etc. of the 'Match' and if they have played in less than half of it, I do not think they can be considered for the awards against players who have played in most or all of the match. I am completely open to suggestions on this. After the results for the Cheltenham game have been posted, there will be the August monthly awards too. Similar principles in terms of winning awards will follow - I am thinking in terms of a minimum % of possible minutes played throughout the month.
davieG Posted 31 August 2008 Posted 31 August 2008 Just to clarify the 'rules' that seemed to be causing a bit of confusion earlier:1) Players can not be given ratings if they have played less than 15 minutes. The main reason I do this is because when you look at the overall picture if I allowed ratings for people who have been on the pitch for two minutes, they end up as valuable in the monthly/season awards as if they have played 90 minutes and I didn't think this was right. 2) The players have to have been on the pitch for at least a half of football or 45 minutes to qualify for the various match awards. The reason for this is that the awards are for Man/Flop etc. of the 'Match' and if they have played in less than half of it, I do not think they can be considered for the awards against players who have played in most or all of the match. I am completely open to suggestions on this. After the results for the Cheltenham game have been posted, there will be the August monthly awards too. Similar principles in terms of winning awards will follow - I am thinking in terms of a minimum % of possible minutes played throughout the month. If it's any help this is the criteria we used for last years player of the month polls: Qualification for players is they have to have played the equivalent of 3 games this month (270 minutes). Seemed to work quite well.
Thracian Posted 31 August 2008 Posted 31 August 2008 That's a fair assessment tbh.I marked Fryatt a seven and no player should have been marked lower then that. It was an all round good away win against an admittedly poor side but you can only beat what's in front of you. Campbell wasn't on long enough to mark but for the short time he was on he looked woeful. Sometimes against a poor side teams can gradually get dragged down to their level but there's been no suggestion of this happening with City yesterday or, indeed, whenever they've played this season. As a squad they seem to all get their heads down and work hard for the result and, indeed, for each other. Getting good results against poor sides has not been a strength of ours for years but if the current attitude continues then we might build in a bit of insurance for when we play the better sides. Poor,Cheltenham might have been but there'd have been enough carping had we struggled so I agree with you about the team performance as a whole. Credit where it is due. Football records have endless examples of good team being beaten by bad ones because they had the wrong attitude.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 31 August 2008 Posted 31 August 2008 Martin 7 Gilbert 8 Morrison 7 Hobbs 8 Tunchev 7 Dickov 6 Oakley 7 King 7 Dyer 9 Howard 8 Fryatt 7 Gradel 6
Guest Posted 31 August 2008 Posted 31 August 2008 Martin 7Gilbert 8 Morrison 7 Hobbs 8 Tunchev 7 Dickov 6 Oakley 7 King 7 Dyer 9 Howard 8 Fryatt 7 Gradel 6 I'd pretty much agree with that
Joe. Posted 31 August 2008 Posted 31 August 2008 Our first 4-0 away victory for 10 years and could have been more yet people are giving 6's and 7's for our atacking players and midfielders. I don't get it.I don't know what Fryatt and Oakley would have to do to get a good rating off of soem of you guys. Playing well and warranting them would be a start...
clazkel Posted 31 August 2008 Posted 31 August 2008 Martin - 7Gilbert - 7 Hobbs - 8 Morrison - 8 Tunchev - 7 Dickov - 7 Oakley - 9* King - 7 Dyer - 8 Howard - 7 Fryatt - 7 Gradel - 7 Campbell - N/A Powell - N/A I agree with 9 for Oakley and MOTM, he ran midfield, looked a class above Cheltenham midfield especially second half.
Thracian Posted 31 August 2008 Posted 31 August 2008 I agree with 9 for Oakley and MOTM, he ran midfield, looked a class above Cheltenham midfield
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.