| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 00:04 - Jan 28 with 2136 views | isawqpratwcity |
Thanks, Clive. I welcome any report that JFH is gradually getting a grip on the team.
Good to hear that our goalkeeping situation is resolved, too. It just highlights that we have to get Green off the books asap. |  |
|  |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 12:34 - Jan 28 with 1895 views | ScubaHoop |
Great report as per, but why did Smithes drop 3 marks from his score? From reading that aside from saving a penalty or scoring a goal what else could he have done? |  | | |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 13:35 - Jan 28 with 1859 views | simmo |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 12:34 - Jan 28 by ScubaHoop |
Great report as per, but why did Smithes drop 3 marks from his score? From reading that aside from saving a penalty or scoring a goal what else could he have done? |
Well what happens if in the next game he does score a goal and save a penalty??
All ratings aside, I thought we were the better team overall without creating too many chances, Washington cameo particularly impressive. He had a few chances that he might have finished in League 1 but just took a bit too long or too wide a touch - things he will learn to eliminate once he gets to grips with this level. I'll be surprised if it takes much longer for him to get his 1st start and goal.
Thought Mancienne was really good for them too, almost scored and made 2-3 important defensive headers, 1 of which from under his own bar after an excellent corner.
Positive signs for sure and for a 0-0, it wasn't that boring |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 14:37 - Jan 28 with 1819 views | Northernr |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 12:34 - Jan 28 by ScubaHoop |
Great report as per, but why did Smithes drop 3 marks from his score? From reading that aside from saving a penalty or scoring a goal what else could he have done? |
Knew somebody would ask that, mainly because it's a perfectly valid question.
Ok, so on the goalkeeper question specifically, let's say we'd won 4-0 the other night, absolutely dominated the whole thing, restricting Forest to 0 shots off target, 0 shots on target, and Smithies had basically watched the whole thing as a spectator taking occasional goal kicks. Clean sheet, done absolutely nothing wrong, 10/10 by that logic surely? In actual fact I'd have probably given him a 6, maybe a 7 as the overall team performance would probably have been a 7 or an 8.
So here's how the LFW ratings are worked out. Firstly nobody gets 0 or 10, because it gives us nowhere to go if somebody is ever better or worse. Same reason hardly anybody ever gets 1 or 9.
We start (and by we it's me, Neil SI, Simmo, Jeff, Mrs Jeff, whoever has been at the game and is in the pub/car/train afterwards) by deciding what sort of a game/team performance it was. Was the team at a 4 or a 5 in this bad defeat? Were we at 6 or 7 in this draw? Were we at 7 or 8 in this win? That sort of informs the ratings, because if the overall team performance is crap then we're going to be giving out 4s and 5s and if it was great we'll be giving out 7s or 8s. We're kind of setting the par for the course there if you like. Tuesday night we thought we were at a high 6 as a team overall.
So let's assume the average mark for a QPR player the other night, the standard mark, is a 6. Then we start looking for the landmark players — by which I mean the best and the worst players we had. We thought Smithies and Washington were the best of the QPR players (above 6) and Konchesky and Fer were the worst (below 6).
So are Smithies and Washington worth more than a 7? Washington was only on for half an hour, and didn't score, so it's hard to give a non-scoring striker more than a 7 however well he played. Similarly Smithies made good saves, and kept a clean sheet, but Forest barely had a shot on the goal apart from that mad 15 minute spell. For precedent, we gave Radek Cerny a 9 at Old Trafford when he basically played them by himself for 90 minutes. A 7 seems fair, given the workload and overall team performance. If we'd given him 8 or 9 it looks like we were getting battered all night and he kept us in it, which isn't true.
At the other end, Konchesky was bad, but was he a 4? Not convinced. Simmo and Neil SI usually disagree at this point — Simmo will call Konchesky a cock womble and say he was worth a 3 and should probably retire, Neil will say he's not as bad as people make out and give him a 6 before insinuating he might be in with a shout of the POTY award. That'll carry on for a bit and then he gets a 5. Was Fer worse than Konchesky? No, so a 5 also. That leaves everybody else on a 6 but we thought Perch was marginally worse than, say Luongo, so gave him 5 (should be 5.5 really) and Hall was better than say Onuoha so gets 7 when in reality it's 6.5.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 14:55 - Jan 28 with 1804 views | simmo |
At one point Konchesky tried to play a cross field pass and shanked it so badly it went straight out of play for a throw in - on the same side that he was standing.
He is a cock womble. | |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 18:04 - Jan 28 with 1675 views | QPRCambs |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 14:37 - Jan 28 by Northernr |
Knew somebody would ask that, mainly because it's a perfectly valid question.
Ok, so on the goalkeeper question specifically, let's say we'd won 4-0 the other night, absolutely dominated the whole thing, restricting Forest to 0 shots off target, 0 shots on target, and Smithies had basically watched the whole thing as a spectator taking occasional goal kicks. Clean sheet, done absolutely nothing wrong, 10/10 by that logic surely? In actual fact I'd have probably given him a 6, maybe a 7 as the overall team performance would probably have been a 7 or an 8.
So here's how the LFW ratings are worked out. Firstly nobody gets 0 or 10, because it gives us nowhere to go if somebody is ever better or worse. Same reason hardly anybody ever gets 1 or 9.
We start (and by we it's me, Neil SI, Simmo, Jeff, Mrs Jeff, whoever has been at the game and is in the pub/car/train afterwards) by deciding what sort of a game/team performance it was. Was the team at a 4 or a 5 in this bad defeat? Were we at 6 or 7 in this draw? Were we at 7 or 8 in this win? That sort of informs the ratings, because if the overall team performance is crap then we're going to be giving out 4s and 5s and if it was great we'll be giving out 7s or 8s. We're kind of setting the par for the course there if you like. Tuesday night we thought we were at a high 6 as a team overall.
So let's assume the average mark for a QPR player the other night, the standard mark, is a 6. Then we start looking for the landmark players — by which I mean the best and the worst players we had. We thought Smithies and Washington were the best of the QPR players (above 6) and Konchesky and Fer were the worst (below 6).
So are Smithies and Washington worth more than a 7? Washington was only on for half an hour, and didn't score, so it's hard to give a non-scoring striker more than a 7 however well he played. Similarly Smithies made good saves, and kept a clean sheet, but Forest barely had a shot on the goal apart from that mad 15 minute spell. For precedent, we gave Radek Cerny a 9 at Old Trafford when he basically played them by himself for 90 minutes. A 7 seems fair, given the workload and overall team performance. If we'd given him 8 or 9 it looks like we were getting battered all night and he kept us in it, which isn't true.
At the other end, Konchesky was bad, but was he a 4? Not convinced. Simmo and Neil SI usually disagree at this point — Simmo will call Konchesky a cock womble and say he was worth a 3 and should probably retire, Neil will say he's not as bad as people make out and give him a 6 before insinuating he might be in with a shout of the POTY award. That'll carry on for a bit and then he gets a 5. Was Fer worse than Konchesky? No, so a 5 also. That leaves everybody else on a 6 but we thought Perch was marginally worse than, say Luongo, so gave him 5 (should be 5.5 really) and Hall was better than say Onuoha so gets 7 when in reality it's 6.5.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Good grief! I never knew it was supposed to involve this much science!! I'll have to remember all this on the next occasion I am called upon to do a match report... |  | | |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 18:45 - Jan 28 with 1612 views | YorkRanger |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 18:04 - Jan 28 by QPRCambs |
Good grief! I never knew it was supposed to involve this much science!! I'll have to remember all this on the next occasion I am called upon to do a match report... |
Ditto, worried my analysis was left wanting on my solitary match report to date.. |  | | |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 06:20 - Jan 29 with 1399 views | FDC |
Joe McGinniss describes the scoring process behind his match ratings in depth in the excellent The Miracle Of Castel Di Sangro. Until I read that I'd never really given the numbers much thought, but now always think of it when reading Clive's reports. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 08:03 - Jan 29 with 1371 views | simmo |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 06:20 - Jan 29 by FDC |
Joe McGinniss describes the scoring process behind his match ratings in depth in the excellent The Miracle Of Castel Di Sangro. Until I read that I'd never really given the numbers much thought, but now always think of it when reading Clive's reports. |
As an American, I think he reads far more than he should into those 'stats'. Imagine if a foreigner came to Engalnd and based his player assessments on the ratings from the Evening Standard or something!
Great book though - nearly finished. | |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 08:48 - Jan 29 with 1349 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 14:37 - Jan 28 by Northernr |
Knew somebody would ask that, mainly because it's a perfectly valid question.
Ok, so on the goalkeeper question specifically, let's say we'd won 4-0 the other night, absolutely dominated the whole thing, restricting Forest to 0 shots off target, 0 shots on target, and Smithies had basically watched the whole thing as a spectator taking occasional goal kicks. Clean sheet, done absolutely nothing wrong, 10/10 by that logic surely? In actual fact I'd have probably given him a 6, maybe a 7 as the overall team performance would probably have been a 7 or an 8.
So here's how the LFW ratings are worked out. Firstly nobody gets 0 or 10, because it gives us nowhere to go if somebody is ever better or worse. Same reason hardly anybody ever gets 1 or 9.
We start (and by we it's me, Neil SI, Simmo, Jeff, Mrs Jeff, whoever has been at the game and is in the pub/car/train afterwards) by deciding what sort of a game/team performance it was. Was the team at a 4 or a 5 in this bad defeat? Were we at 6 or 7 in this draw? Were we at 7 or 8 in this win? That sort of informs the ratings, because if the overall team performance is crap then we're going to be giving out 4s and 5s and if it was great we'll be giving out 7s or 8s. We're kind of setting the par for the course there if you like. Tuesday night we thought we were at a high 6 as a team overall.
So let's assume the average mark for a QPR player the other night, the standard mark, is a 6. Then we start looking for the landmark players — by which I mean the best and the worst players we had. We thought Smithies and Washington were the best of the QPR players (above 6) and Konchesky and Fer were the worst (below 6).
So are Smithies and Washington worth more than a 7? Washington was only on for half an hour, and didn't score, so it's hard to give a non-scoring striker more than a 7 however well he played. Similarly Smithies made good saves, and kept a clean sheet, but Forest barely had a shot on the goal apart from that mad 15 minute spell. For precedent, we gave Radek Cerny a 9 at Old Trafford when he basically played them by himself for 90 minutes. A 7 seems fair, given the workload and overall team performance. If we'd given him 8 or 9 it looks like we were getting battered all night and he kept us in it, which isn't true.
At the other end, Konchesky was bad, but was he a 4? Not convinced. Simmo and Neil SI usually disagree at this point — Simmo will call Konchesky a cock womble and say he was worth a 3 and should probably retire, Neil will say he's not as bad as people make out and give him a 6 before insinuating he might be in with a shout of the POTY award. That'll carry on for a bit and then he gets a 5. Was Fer worse than Konchesky? No, so a 5 also. That leaves everybody else on a 6 but we thought Perch was marginally worse than, say Luongo, so gave him 5 (should be 5.5 really) and Hall was better than say Onuoha so gets 7 when in reality it's 6.5.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Sorry, Clive - could you go through that again? |  |
| |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 12:22 - Jan 29 with 1280 views | YorkRanger |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 06:20 - Jan 29 by FDC |
Joe McGinniss describes the scoring process behind his match ratings in depth in the excellent The Miracle Of Castel Di Sangro. Until I read that I'd never really given the numbers much thought, but now always think of it when reading Clive's reports. |
Great book that one FDC | | | |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 14:41 - Jan 29 with 1227 views | FDC |
| Keepers on top as curse continues - Report on 12:22 - Jan 29 by YorkRanger |
Great book that one FDC |
True that York.
I was back in Sheffield for the first time in a long time over Xmas, down Division Street no less. All looks very different these days! Have you been back recently? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
