Ratings - Spammers (H)

[Robbo]

Good game from us, although West Ham made it really easy for us. They were tinkle poor and the scoreline is flattering for them.

Lloris 8,5 - now beginning to show the quality that people says he's got

Walker 7 - good to see him do well again, hopefully it can be a confidence booster
Dawson 8 - great to see him playing that well again
Caulker 7,5 - what a prospect this lad is. Another good game, minus for the mistake before their goal
Vertonghen 8 - quality again. Would like to see him play centre defence

Lennon 7 - a little anonymous at times, but great play for the 3-0 goal. Always a threat
Sandro 9 - massive player for us. Turning into one of our most important players, always doing well
Huddlestone 6,5 - better, but he still has a way to go before he's back at his best
Dempsey 7 - played well today. Unlucky not to score, but a great assist
Bale 8 - good game, quality goal. Much better than lately

Defoe 8,5 - brilliant first goal, looked a threat all game. Another good performance

 

[uksb]

I am not saying that people who cannot get to games are not proper fans, I am saying that live you see players commitment and effort, also on the screen you get a false impression of distance etc, I have been to games where players have had a stormer yet on highlights you dont notice them, Huddlestone absolutely bossed the game on Sunday yet did not show in the highlights at all really.

As Jordinho said I don't think anyone is basing their ratings on highlights. And you get a better impression of distances on TV than you do behind the goal for example.

 

[zin]

Ratings should only be allowed imo by people who have actually attended the game, I have always thought for years that the game you see on TV is misleading to what actually happens, even "live" games, we DOMINATED west ham and yet in both sets of highlights the commentators would have you believe that we were lucky to go 1-0 up at half time.
Laura Williamson in the mail actually reported that Defoes first goal was in the top right hand corner, also the rest of her report was a joke total idiot.
The reason we looked good was because WHU defended deep and never closed down Tom and Sandro who bossed the game from start to finish, I could not believe the time That Huddlestone was given on the ball.
Also Walker had a good game because they very rarely came down his side and let him push forward all the time, even when they brought Jarvis on it made little difference.
When you play that big lump Carrol you must put crosses in and west ham at no width whatsover, I still cannot make up my mind if we were really good or west ham were tactically awful.
I await your arrows!

Watching live on TV as far as I'm concerned is as good if not better than watching it at the ground in terms of giving a rating. Anyone giving ratings on highlights or radio commentary should really think about what they are doing.

Jimmy-g your ratings are actually almost spot on with the game average, your biggest differences are Huddlestone who you rated 1.25 more and Walker who you rated 0.5 less. I watched it live on telly (not a stream) and didn't think Huddlestone deserved anywhere near an 8 personally. Maybe certain parts of his play stood out more live at the game at a moment in time which increased your rating for him.

 

[zin]

I don't think anyone rates on highlights? Watching it live on tv let's you see things you won't notice from the stands through close ups and replays. These rating threads are just a bit of fun, they don't carry any deeper meaning.

They are not fun collating that I assure you! I think they are a good representation for game of the season, player of the season, player of the month, form during a month etc... once the Liverpool game is out of the way I'll post some pretty graphs. Obviously the bigger the sample the better.

 

[Jordinho]

They are not fun collating that I assure you! I think they are a good representation for game of the season, player of the season, player of the month, form during a month etc... once the Liverpool game is out of the way I'll post some pretty graphs. Obviously the bigger the sample the better.

Of course, but they are people's opinions, nothing scientific. Once they're collated (good job BTW) you can have some fun with them.

 

[Pirate55]

Zin - you do a great job and the summary always makes interesting reading. Well done and thank you. keep it up.

 

[Jimmy-g]

I think the ratings on here are a great idea, even if I don't agree with the marks given it does get you thinking, I have often taken on board what various posters have said, all in all this is an excellent forum, thanks to all the people who put in the effort.

 

[zin]

With victory comes our best game rating of the season with 7.35, beating the previous high of 7.23 away to Man Utd. One of the main reasons for the high rating is the excellent team performance throughout the whole team, with the lowest rating going to Tom Huddlestone with a respectable 6.72, his second highest rating of the season after the 6.91 which he got against Maribor at home.

With his brace Defoe wins MOTM with a rating of 8.00, closely followed by the other goal scorer Bale with 7.88 and Lloris, who once again performed extremely well, with 7.86. A special mention should also go out to Clint Dempsey who not only got his highest rating of the season with 7.42, eclipsing his previous highest of 6.80 he got away to Man Utd, but also for the first time in 13 games got a rating which was above the team average. 13th time lucky for the American.

Further positives include Michael Dawson getting his highest rating of the season in his 5th game with 7.36, much better than his previous high against Maribor at home which was a 6.85, and Kyle Walker who with a 7.08 finally broke the over-7 barrier at the 19th time of asking by beating his previous high of 6.77 vs Reading away. The home game vs West Brom however still remains the only time he has gotten a rating above the team average so has still more to give.

No negatives really to report on, Lloris the only player getting a lower rating from his previous match, but that's to be expected with the incredible performance he put in against Lazio. As a side note this is one of the few times TFC has given lower ratings than GG! With Bale MOTM for TFC and Lennon the worst player for GG.

 

[metalgear]

Hi Zin - great work as usual with the stats, even better with the write up!

BTW can you remind me what those acronyms in the table stands for?

 

[ArcspacE]

GG - Glory Glory

TFC - The Fighting C0ck

Av - Average

 

[clevelandspur]

I think those composite ratings are spot on for this game, I thought Defoe and Bale were our best and Huddlestone was our poorest performer albeit still OK

 

[zin]

Dev is for standard deviation, essentially how much difference of opinion is in terms of ratings for a player. The lower the more people agree with the rating, the higher the more people's opinion differs on the performance.