Ratings vs. Mansfield

[ivansneck]

Firstly the best defensive performance of the season I've seen so far. back 4 looked more of a unit and the midfield actually did some defending for once... It did lack creativity but that wasn't crucial today, the clean sheet was.

 

Collin 6 - good saves but wobbly at times

Tootle 7 - reasonably solid

Duffy 6 - looked much better in a flat back 4 and with Audel next to him.

Audel 6 - Solid for once

Dickinson 5 - not much good going forward but steady enough at the back

Milsom 6 - Defended better than usual - held the shape

O'Connor 6 - Held the midfield together well

Thompson 7 - MOM for me. Energy in midfield is what we've been sadly lacking.

Campbell 5 - Game passed him by too much - I would have liked to see him play wider.

Forte 4 - Never really got into the game, and almost gifted them a goal

Stead - 6 Battled hard, still not fully fit and the service to him wasn't great

 

Mansfield

Kristyan Pearce - 8 Outstanding

Arquin 5 - did a lot of good work but what a sitter he missed!!!

[Elite_pie]

Collin - 6.5 - Good save from the deflected shot first half, generally looked competent.
Tootle - 6 - Solid defensively, didn't get forward too much.
Duffy - 7 - Didn't do a lot wrong, kept their forwards quiet.
Audel - 7 - I like Audel, prone to the odd error but he puts his body on the line and plays as if it matters.
Dickinson - 6 - Nothing special, but stuck at it.
Thompson - 7 - Gets stuck in and stays involved.
Milsom - 6 - Steady performance.
O'Connor -7* - Gave us a physical presence in midfield that we have lacked all season.
Forte - 5 - Never offered much threat.
Campbell - 5 - Tried as usual, but no creative influence at all.
Stead - 5 - No help from the ref (some were fouls some weren't) but never looked like scoring.

Not the best or worse 0-0 I've seen, but at least the losing sequence is finally over. We would have normally deserved criticism for being too defensive for a home game, but after what has gone before that was understandable. A clean sheet is a decent start, but we need to offer more going forwards if we are to move out of the bottom two.  Nice to see the ground so full, looking at the bigger picture I think Hardy & Nolan deserve an 8/10  for today's production.

[Chris]

Interesting to see the ratings, I actually missed the game (explained elsewhere) but I hope to see more input into the rating as it gives me a greater insight.

I've been scanning comments during and after the game.

It would seem that fans believe Duffy played very well, most seem to agree that Audel deserves the Man of the Match.

[Piethagoram]

Collin - 5.5 - Gave a more confident display still tinged with the odd indecisive moment
Tootle - 5.5 Solid defensively
Duffy - 5.5 - Much improved, probably only because Audel alongside played so well
Audel - 7.5 - MoTM performance. Concentrated well and avoided any major error. Just proved JS wrong on many counts
Dickinson - 4 - Maybe other viewers missed but thought he was taken to the cleaners at times in the first half. Better second but his lack of pace fails the team to build attacks on the left hand side.
Thompson - 5.5 - Typical Curtis performance. Still lacks a creative edge to his game.
Milsom - 5 - Escaped from major error in first half which exposed the whole team. Apart from that, a steady performance.
O'Connor -5.5 - Better but still far from convinced. Yes, he gave a physical presence in midfield but dead balls, woefully short of the quality needed. One good corner routine though.
Forte - 5 - Calamitous mistake in 2nd half nearly cost us.Found it difficult at times to influence the game
Campbell - 4 - Effort yes but touch and passing, so woeful. Game passed him by and needed to be subbed much earlier
Stead - 4- Raw deal from the ref at times but never looked like scoring. Not the same player pre injury.
 

 

[liampie]

Collin 5 - used his hands well when saving but looked vulnerable at times due to positioning.

Tootle 6 - he did alright, nothing negative stood out and covered well.

Duffy 6.5 - put in one of his better performances, he looked calm on the ball for once.

Audel 7 - good going forward and solid in the air, he was out of position a fair bit but would make up for it.

Dickinson 4 - awful at defending but decent going forward.

Milsom 6 - made good movement, passed nicely and always looked to get the ball forward.

O'Connor 5 - worked well with milsom but struggled at times which lead to a few problems at times.

Thompson 7 - ran and got involved, did well trying to close down the mansfield players and moved around to make space. he did very well!

Campbell 5 - he struggled to get involved at times, offered very little.

Forte 5 - similar to campbell but did well on the ball at times. 

Stead 4 - looked unfit and really out of the game. very isolated with the long balls, we need a tall strong partner for him.

[Piethagoram]

http://www.nottinghampost.com/who-was-notts-county-s-man-of-the-match-in-mansfield-derby-draw/story-30059107-detail/story.html

I accept Duffy did well, in context, but 8/10???

[Chris]

I can't really comment, I didn't see how he performed but your not the first who's queried the ratings somewhere (most places). I guess its called how each individual sees tho.

[Elite_pie]

I think it depends on your benchmark.  I always work on a 6 for an average, competent performance, but I know @Piethagoram has said he works on a 5.  Interesting that my team total for the Stags game is 67.5, @Piethagoram totals 57, which backs up the idea that my benchmark is one nark higher than his.  Leigh Curtis totals 72, which suggests his standard mark is 6.5.

[liampie]

@Elite_pie brilliant post!!

i think the standard of play is 6 for did 'alright', 7 for played well. 8 very good etc. where 5 is average, 4 is poor, 3 is awful etc.

[Piethagoram]

@Elite_pie @liampie @notts-joe Yes indeed, my benchmark is 5. I want my players to earn their ratings, starting at 6 is too comfortable 😁 and don't get me going on Leigh ( musn't upset the players because I may get to interview them ) Curtis

It is though interesting to look where the peaks and troughs are, which in general terms are more aligned on this message board.

[Chris]

I think mine would be around 5.5 or 6, I should probably stick to just one for the sake of consistency.

It would be interesting if we played well, and the benchmark was 6.5 - how many would come out with 10's or 9's?? Yet really, I think its rare for any player to score above 8 - they would have had to do an awful lot to score so highly.

[Piethagoram]

@Elite_pie new addition to the ratings lexicon.."nark"😂

[Elite_pie]

5 minutes ago, Piethagoram said:

@Elite_pie new addition to the ratings lexicon.."nark"😂

A 'nark' is the new currency for performance ratings.  As an example, Collin gained a nark for his excellent reaction save to the deflected shot.  Both Stead and Forte were deducted a nark for offering little goal threat.  

I did notice my error after I'd posted, but couldn't find the bloody edit button!

[ivansneck]

A 'nark' is the new currency for performance ratings.  As an example, Collin gained a nark for his excellent reaction save to the deflected shot.  Both Stead and Forte were deducted a nark for offering little goal threat.  
I did notice my error after I'd posted, but couldn't find the bloody edit button!

I think the edit button has vaniissh sorry vonishhed sorry you know what I mean...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Super_Danny_Allsopp]

If ratings were based on past performances, almost all of them would be on 10.