Back From The Game - Norwich

[Ark Royal]

Back over the other side of the pond after flying over for the match. Sat with TB in the North right behind the goal. Here is my take:

Feds 5 - Was really stranded by Mills and no blame there, but he never really got set for the free kick and I think he could have got across quicker. Was not helped by Howard breaking the wall.

Griff 6, Mills 4, Zurab 4, Harte 5 - Atrocious first half collectively. Mills and Zurab got caught the wrong side on numerous occasions with Holt proving a real handful. The sending-off was the pivotal moment. I though Zurab was at fault for two - he hesitated to cover for the first and got caught under the ball before Mills fcuked up. Griff was galvanized second half when Antonio came on. TB and I were screaming for Harte to bomb on in the second half. He left Church totally isolated, which explains why he barely had a sniff. All of the good work and 2v1 situations were coming from the right.

Hunt 6, Howard 3, Karacan 7, McAnuff 5 - Hunt huffed and puffed in the first half to no great effect. Much better in the second half when he played more centrally. Lovely cool finish for the goal. Would like to see him play up front more often. Howard was just really bad and never got the passing going apart from one peach to Long. Gave the ball away on countless occasions. Mystified as to why BMcD did not replace him with Tabb, even at half-time. McAnuff was anonymous throughout and just looked lost when he went central after Antonio came on. Karacan was my MotM. Did the simple things well and got in a real 'reducer' of a tackle near the end. I had a good view of it and it was perfectly timed.

Church 5, Long 6 - Church was anonymous second half apart from a screamer that the keeper did really well to tip on to the post. His anonymity was largely due to Harte leaving him so isolated and not going by him. Longy did well. It was a definite pen, but he did make the most of it. Thought he should have done better after he chested down a fantastic long pass from Harte. He never really decided which foot to hit it with. That could have sealed it.

Sub: Antonio 6 - I was impressed with the lad. Raw and a bit like Bambi on ice, but he scared the living shit out of them and his presence gave us real width and allowed Griffs to really push on. The long throw is a useful weapon as well.

All in all, I think a point won after the first half, but I left with the impression that we could have nicked all three.

As for the people behind us in the North who were screaming for us to sit down for the pen, you can all just FU CK OFF. Needless to say we ignored them. I do not why they bother. I get the impression that the most exciting thing that happens in their lives is that they have a shit in the morning and spot sweet corn in it.

[Ian Royal]

Looked to me like Church broke away from the wall

Are you sure? I thought it was Khiz who broke away/ducked.

Kishanishvili wasn't even in the wall, he was 5 yards behind it covering someone. The TV shot from behind the ball made it look like he was and the commentator said how he was breaking from the wall but watch it properly and you'll see he was behind it by some distance (presumably covering a run outside the wall or a man behind it).

Howard was the man on the edge of the wall, the 4th man if you like, but he was late getting there and never actually joined the wall as such. He then moved away as the kick was taken. It was either very sloppy and a few at fault for letting it happen, or he wasn't intended to be part of the wall in the first place.

And Hunt was the third in the wall who didn't jump in the slightest. It's a total shambles involving at least four players.

[Snowball]

Given people have different priorities for what makes a good performance and won't necessarily use the numbered ranking system in the same way as each other, there is very little wrong with getting a wide variation in the ratings given. And then of course there's personal bias and the fact that very few people can recall everything about every player's performance.

I for example will almost never give anything lower than a 5 or higher than an 8. While plenty of others might do it routinely.

So the numbers are meaningless

Beyond reflecting someone's personal opinions on the game, yes.

But for numbers to be meaningful they should be COMPARABLE. That is roughly 6 from you, me, 2WW, Ian, whoever should roughly be the same.

A simple checklist would do it.

Example

10 God, Messi, Torres at his best (nearly as good as Forster on a bad day)
09 Absolute top performance for this level, faultless, MoM
08 Excellent, really good, hard to fault
07 Well above Average
06 Above Average
05 Average
04 Bad day at the office
03 Very poor, should have been subbed, subbed earlier
02 I was disgusted etc
01 Should be shot
00 Should shoot himself.

[Ian Royal]

It's completely subjective and dependent on the individual's interpretation. As scientific or statistical evidence it's less than worthless.

[Royal With Cheese]

It's completely subjective and dependent on the individual's interpretation. As scientific or statistical evidence it's less than worthless.

Perhaps we should send the scores directly to Snowball to vet before posting? I'm all for a simple life.

[Snowball]

It's completely subjective and dependent on the individual's interpretation. As scientific or statistical evidence it's less than worthless.

DUH. Really?

I diddun no dat.

[Wycombe Royal]

A simple checklist would do it.

Example

10 God, Messi, Torres at his best (nearly as good as Forster on a bad day)
09 Absolute top performance for this level, faultless, MoM
08 Excellent, really good, hard to fault
07 Well above Average
06 Above Average
05 Average
04 Bad day at the office
03 Very poor, should have been subbed, subbed earlier
02 I was disgusted etc
01 Should be shot
00 Should shoot himself.

So now you are also laying down what the standard should be for scoring players as well as what the standard number of matches is for form?

It is subjective and someones opinion, they will use whatever scroing mathod they see fit. Even the Sunday papers can have marks that differ by 2 or more for the same player in the same match.

[Mr Angry]

We were lucky, as without one of the softest red cards ever, we would have been totally humiliated.

If I was a Norwich fan, I would have been doing a Woodcote at some of those refereeing decisions.

Our "strongest" defence has now conceded 10 goals in 4 games; no amount of statistical spin can gloss over that fact. This is - at the moment - the most pressing issue facing Brian, and needs to sorted or else our chances of ending the season in the play-off positions - already marginal - will enter the "slim to anorexic" zone.

[Terminal Boardom]

8 points away from the top 2.
7 points away from the bottom 3.

Defence as mobile and efficient as a burnt out oil rig.
Forwards not scoring enough goals.

SOMETHING NEEDS TO CHANGE

[Snowball]

A simple checklist would do it.

Example

10 God, Messi, Torres at his best (nearly as good as Forster on a bad day)
09 Absolute top performance for this level, faultless, MoM
08 Excellent, really good, hard to fault
07 Well above Average
06 Above Average
05 Average
04 Bad day at the office
03 Very poor, should have been subbed, subbed earlier
02 I was disgusted etc
01 Should be shot
00 Should shoot himself.

So now you are also laying down what the standard should be for scoring players as well as what the standard number of matches is for form?

It is subjective and someones opinion, they will use whatever scroing mathod they see fit. Even the Sunday papers can have marks that differ by 2 or more for the same player in the same match.

DUH. Really?

I diddun no dat.



It wasn't SERIOUS. Did U notice that?

But if ten people post numbers that have no commonality they may as well not post numbers... whereas an Excellent, VV Good V Good etc can be COMPARED

[Wycombe Royal]

A simple checklist would do it.

Example

10 God, Messi, Torres at his best (nearly as good as Forster on a bad day)
09 Absolute top performance for this level, faultless, MoM
08 Excellent, really good, hard to fault
07 Well above Average
06 Above Average
05 Average
04 Bad day at the office
03 Very poor, should have been subbed, subbed earlier
02 I was disgusted etc
01 Should be shot
00 Should shoot himself.

So now you are also laying down what the standard should be for scoring players as well as what the standard number of matches is for form?

It is subjective and someones opinion, they will use whatever scroing mathod they see fit. Even the Sunday papers can have marks that differ by 2 or more for the same player in the same match.

DUH. Really?

I diddun no dat.



It wasn't SERIOUS. Did U notice that?

But if ten people post numbers that have no commonality they may as well not post numbers... whereas an Excellent, VV Good V Good etc can be COMPARED

Sonow you are saying who can or can't post numbers....


Snowball for moderator. Not.

[Ian Royal]

Excellent, vv good, v good etc is exactly the same, but with numbers replaced with words.

Perhaps if you realise that's its worthless as statistical evidence you shouldn't have tried to treat it as such when there is obviously no point in doing so.

Why should people not post numbers just because they have different views on performances and give different ratings? You really are some sort of discussion fascist aren't you. Everything has to be on your terms and no-one elses and no one is allowed to point out the flaws in your posts whilst you try and rip everyone else to shreds (and fail).

[Terminal Boardom]

Are Ian Royal and Snowflake related?

[Svlad Cjelli]

Hve you people not heard of the "wisdom of crowds"

If enough people dothe ratings they'll be statistically valid, because individual variances will be less significant in a larger data set.

[Snowball]

Sonow you are saying who can or can't post numbers....


.

No. I couldn't give a oxf*rd. Just making the point that they are utterly mickey-mouse
if they can't be compared

[Snowball]

Excellent, vv good, v good etc is exactly the same, but with numbers replaced with words.

Perhaps if you realise that's its worthless as statistical evidence you shouldn't have tried to treat it as such when there is obviously no point in doing so.

Why should people not post numbers just because they have different views on performances and give different ratings? You really are some sort of discussion fascist aren't you. Everything has to be on your terms and no-one elses and no one is allowed to point out the flaws in your posts whilst you try and rip everyone else to shreds (and fail).

So how did you rate Long at Portsmouth?

[Royal With Cheese]

Excellent, vv good, v good etc is exactly the same, but with numbers replaced with words.

Perhaps if you realise that's its worthless as statistical evidence you shouldn't have tried to treat it as such when there is obviously no point in doing so.

Why should people not post numbers just because they have different views on performances and give different ratings? You really are some sort of discussion fascist aren't you. Everything has to be on your terms and no-one elses and no one is allowed to point out the flaws in your posts whilst you try and rip everyone else to shreds (and fail).

So how did you rate Long at Portsmouth?

He's never played for Portsmouth.

[RoyalX]

FWIW, I use two football statistics websites, both of which use 8 games for recent form.

They http://www.soccerstats.com and http://stats.football365.com/

[Wycombe Royal]

FWIW, I use two football statistics websites, both of which use 8 games for recent form.

They http://www.soccerstats.com and http://stats.football365.com/

It's not a standard measure though. Snowball says so.....

[Muskrat]

Not that I'm really bothered, and probably a Dodd if I could be arsed to look, but Garnt Holt's red card has been rescinded.
Shame we couldn't have got Cardiffs goal rescinded as well...