Clearly the original post from someone who wasn't at the game was nonsense. Nice to see several people with more rational views balance things up. Yes, a horrid start, but he stuck at it, never hid, and grew into the game during our stickiest spell. Such a shame Solly hasn't been able to show us what he can do, and I sincerely hope Youga's not out for long, though Basey's done well at Yeovil and again last night.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]c/a/f/c,
have to say you make yourself looked pretty silly slagging off a player like that when you weren't even at the game.
Even if you did speak to 6 whole people how do you get to "worst Charlton player ever"?[/quote]
I've been at every game he's played for charlton but couldn't make it last night due to work commitments and just think he is appalling, maybe he did get better last night but from what friends and i have seen of him, i dont rate him at all.
[cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]Can we just lay off him.
He was awful when we started, but it was a slippy night and many players lost their feet. In the second half he played at an acceptable level, few of the problems we had came down his flank and he tried hard to get forward allied with working hard to get back into position. As someone pointed out he did bloody well to stop an almost definite goal after Kuffour again did some excellent approach play. The lad looked nervous but improved.
The way I see it we had Richardson and Solly go down injured both almost simultaneously and we can't expect that Parky is always going to be offered a quality replacement. Omosuzi was offered to us, he's cheap and surplus to requirements at Fulham (they had no problem with him being cup tied for example). Signing him helped get us over the right back problem short-term and allowed Parky to have a look at a player who may or may not be worth signing full time - if he'd been a star in the making we could have acquired a very good player for peanuts.
So he's had a look at him, but that he's been on the bench the last two games while Parky has preferred to play Youga at RB and bring Basey in at LB suggests that he's worth retaining until Richardson and Solly regain fitness and then should be released back into the care of the community.
The player has been given an extended trial and time to prove his worth but I don't think will be with us that much longer.
[cite]Posted By: pilchard[/cite]Well we are nearly as rich as Real Madrid, it's not as if we a a 3rd tier English team so naturally we do expect the finest quality in the side.... nay demand it.
Indeed this is another example of the club's lack of ambition. Why aren't we getting in internationals rather than cast-offs from Fulham? I demand an answer from Richard Murray tomorrow night. It doesn't matter that we are in L1, we must only accept loanees with at least 20 caps and CL experience.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]
I demand an answer from Richard Murray tomorrow night. It doesn't matter that we are in L1, we must only accept loanees with at least 20 caps and CL experience.
Is that loanees with at least 20 caps and Charlton Life experience .....?
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]The way I see it we had Richardson and Solly go down injured both almost simultaneously and we can't expect that Parky is always going to be offered a quality replacement. Omosuzi was offered to us, he's cheap and surplus to requirements at Fulham (they had no problem with him being cup tied for example).
Just to clarify, he was released by Fulham in the summer so he's only on loan in as much as they bizarrely still hold his registration. He doesn't train with them anymore, he's effectively a free agent.
Quote {Indeed this is another example of the club's lack of ambition. Why aren't we getting in internationals rather than cast-offs from Fulham? I demand an answer from Richard Murray tomorrow night. It doesn't matter that we are in L1, we must only accept loanees with at least 20 caps and CL experience. }/Quote
The last bloke we had with a load of caps and Champions league experience was the mighty Djimi Traore, so be careful what you wish for.....!
[cite]Posted By: Starinnaddick[/cite]Are we paying the price for not having a reserve side?
Omosuzi and others are having to get match fitness in first team games.
I think that is a fair point.
While even reserve games might not get him or others fully ready for league games it would help IMHO
We don't seem to be playing many behind closed doors friendlies either. Could be due to the weather recently but even before then they appeared few and far between unless they are happening but not being reported.
Said in another thread I still think it's early to judge him. Youga has turned it around, it is possible he's just not fit enough yet and a bit nervous. Not saying he will, not every player does, McLeod for example doesn't look like he ever will.
Have to agree with BFR, we got the best in we could (decent experience in the Championship, was with a Premier League club) at a time when all we could sign were loanees and free agents. Not often your first choice right back and his back up will get injured.
For now I'd prefer Youga there with Basey at left back, but to say Omozusi is our worst player ever is well over the top.
believe the 'reserves/squad players' played against the 6th North West Kent Boy's Brigade Company on Monday afternoon but it wasn't reported as they lost 3-0 and they thought to report that would damage morale and heap ridicule on the Club.
On Oggy's point regarding the markings, yes i do dismiss stupid marks such as 2 and 10.
If people don't think as a result of that it offers a true reflection, then fair enough. But i equally don't think giving players nonsensical marks in the first place is giving a true reflection either.
[cite]Posted By: Starinnaddick[/cite]Are we paying the price for not having a reserve side?
Omosuzi and others are having to get match fitness in first team games.
We still play a lot of behind closed door reserve games, so not sure that's the issue. I think it was more that Solly's injury came up straight after Richardson's, so we had the problem of getting in someone who has the required level of ability who's either on a free or available for loan - pretty limited pool - and needing them to make their debut within the week...
AFKA said: ''On Oggy's point regarding the markings, yes i do dismiss stupid marks such as 2 and 10.''
So is there an ''acceptable'' range of markings, Danny? If scores of 2 and 10 are dismissed and not included in the stat bank , what is the permitted range? Is 3 acceptable? And is 9.5 allowed?
I suppose 10 is equivalent to perfection and you could argue that's impossible. But you might equally argue that Defoe earned a 10 for his five goals at the weekend and a 9.5 would not have reflected his achievement.
And I'd say I have definitely seen performances that were worth a miserly 2 or 3. Several of the Wigan players probably earned such a mark v Spurs.
I have also seen certain Charlton players put in performances that meritted no more than 2 or 3. An infamous Greg Halford performance at the Valley comes to mind and a Sasa Ilic nightmare, to name a couple off the top of my head. Possibly the Curbishley performance mid-week v Oxford in '87 that led to Lennie controversially dropping him from the squad for the full members cup final, even.
It does happen, if only rarely, that players put in a stint that makes absolutely no significant or positive contribution to the game.
Personally I''d favour a much wider range of markings, rather than everybody being bunched between 6 and 8, which is what tends to happen...
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]
Personally I''d favour a much wider range of markings, rather than everybody being bunched between 6 and 8, which is what tends to happen...
The point I tried to make, Nigel ....... was that some people were randomly marking a player down based on their emotional perception of that player - rather than an objective mark based on the player's actual overall performance.
Some players then are marked down, sometimes ridiculously low, as much because of their name.
If a player has put in the effort, and even though he's made mistakes, he's made some several positive or game saving contributions, he has to be worth far more than a 2 ...... that same standard of performance made by a more popular player, Richardson for example, would be marked by most as a 6.
And the reason players are mostly marked between 6 and 8 is because, sensibly applied, that's the markings they would generally earn - something like:
4 - stinker .... everything he tried went wrong
5 - poor ...either anonymous/disinterested or too many mistakes
6 - average ... acceptable performance, nothing special, some mistakes
7 - good ...... solid, dependable, few mistakes
8 - very good ..... something extra that made the player shine
9 - excellent ..... influential, match winning performance
10 - outstanding, exceptional out of this world performance
So rather than randomly mark a player, you'd apply some sort of consistancy.
In effect most performances would always be between 6 and 8.
Henry Irving noted :''One of 2 marks was given by someone who wasn't even at the game''.
I agree that's silly.
But my question was a genuine one. I took AFKA to mean that marks of 2 and 10 were always automatically excluded from the stat bank. If he meant that was a one-off call he took on the Bristol Rovers game because a few - including you and me, if the truth be told, HI - had given a couple of players deliberately íronic' marks , that's different.
But Oggy by your ratings there's no point in doing it out of 10 with those definitions. 5 should be average, and you work everything out from there.
0 Give him a free transfer
1 Stinker
2 Poor
3 Below average
4 Bit below average
5 Average
6 Bit better than average
7 Above average
8 Good
9 Excellent
10 Triple that man's wages
Oggy reckoned: ''some people were randomly marking a player down based on their emotional perception of that player - rather than an objective mark based on the player's actual overall performance. Some players then are marked down, sometimes ridiculously low, as much because of their name.''
All I can say is that I hope that's not true, Oggy. I tend to have more faith in the honesty of Charlton fans than that. But then I've always tended to the Rousseauian rather than the Hobbesian view of human nature!
Comments
have to say you make yourself looked pretty silly slagging off a player like that when you weren't even at the game.
Even if you did speak to 6 whole people how do you get to "worst Charlton player ever"?[/quote]
I've been at every game he's played for charlton but couldn't make it last night due to work commitments and just think he is appalling, maybe he did get better last night but from what friends and i have seen of him, i dont rate him at all.
A balanced POV? What's this doing on here? ;0)
So he's had a look at him, but that he's been on the bench the last two games while Parky has preferred to play Youga at RB and bring Basey in at LB suggests that he's worth retaining until Richardson and Solly regain fitness and then should be released back into the care of the community.
The player has been given an extended trial and time to prove his worth but I don't think will be with us that much longer.
So what, I think Sankofa made his debut against Man U (or was it Liverpool?), Randolph certainly made his debut against Liverpool.
Granted he did get skinned a couple of times and they played on that, but he contributed a decent amount to warrant a 5/10.
To be fair, the whole team were crap for the first 20 mins of the second half as Brizzle came out fighting.
To label 1 player the worst to play for Charlton when you weren't even there.... hmm. Jog on mate.
Indeed this is another example of the club's lack of ambition. Why aren't we getting in internationals rather than cast-offs from Fulham? I demand an answer from Richard Murray tomorrow night. It doesn't matter that we are in L1, we must only accept loanees with at least 20 caps and CL experience.
Is that loanees with at least 20 caps and Charlton Life experience .....?
I wonder what some on here would have said after Sweaty Balmer's first few games??? That didn't turn out too bad did it?
Omosuzi and others are having to get match fitness in first team games.
The last bloke we had with a load of caps and Champions league experience was the mighty Djimi Traore, so be careful what you wish for.....!
I think that is a fair point.
While even reserve games might not get him or others fully ready for league games it would help IMHO
We don't seem to be playing many behind closed doors friendlies either. Could be due to the weather recently but even before then they appeared few and far between unless they are happening but not being reported.
Have to agree with BFR, we got the best in we could (decent experience in the Championship, was with a Premier League club) at a time when all we could sign were loanees and free agents. Not often your first choice right back and his back up will get injured.
For now I'd prefer Youga there with Basey at left back, but to say Omozusi is our worst player ever is well over the top.
On Oggy's point regarding the markings, yes i do dismiss stupid marks such as 2 and 10.
If people don't think as a result of that it offers a true reflection, then fair enough. But i equally don't think giving players nonsensical marks in the first place is giving a true reflection either.
So is there an ''acceptable'' range of markings, Danny? If scores of 2 and 10 are dismissed and not included in the stat bank , what is the permitted range? Is 3 acceptable? And is 9.5 allowed?
I suppose 10 is equivalent to perfection and you could argue that's impossible. But you might equally argue that Defoe earned a 10 for his five goals at the weekend and a 9.5 would not have reflected his achievement.
And I'd say I have definitely seen performances that were worth a miserly 2 or 3. Several of the Wigan players probably earned such a mark v Spurs.
I have also seen certain Charlton players put in performances that meritted no more than 2 or 3. An infamous Greg Halford performance at the Valley comes to mind and a Sasa Ilic nightmare, to name a couple off the top of my head. Possibly the Curbishley performance mid-week v Oxford in '87 that led to Lennie controversially dropping him from the squad for the full members cup final, even.
It does happen, if only rarely, that players put in a stint that makes absolutely no significant or positive contribution to the game.
Personally I''d favour a much wider range of markings, rather than everybody being bunched between 6 and 8, which is what tends to happen...
The point I tried to make, Nigel ....... was that some people were randomly marking a player down based on their emotional perception of that player - rather than an objective mark based on the player's actual overall performance.
Some players then are marked down, sometimes ridiculously low, as much because of their name.
If a player has put in the effort, and even though he's made mistakes, he's made some several positive or game saving contributions, he has to be worth far more than a 2 ...... that same standard of performance made by a more popular player, Richardson for example, would be marked by most as a 6.
And the reason players are mostly marked between 6 and 8 is because, sensibly applied, that's the markings they would generally earn - something like:
4 - stinker .... everything he tried went wrong
5 - poor ...either anonymous/disinterested or too many mistakes
6 - average ... acceptable performance, nothing special, some mistakes
7 - good ...... solid, dependable, few mistakes
8 - very good ..... something extra that made the player shine
9 - excellent ..... influential, match winning performance
10 - outstanding, exceptional out of this world performance
So rather than randomly mark a player, you'd apply some sort of consistancy.
In effect most performances would always be between 6 and 8.
I agree that's silly.
But my question was a genuine one. I took AFKA to mean that marks of 2 and 10 were always automatically excluded from the stat bank. If he meant that was a one-off call he took on the Bristol Rovers game because a few - including you and me, if the truth be told, HI - had given a couple of players deliberately íronic' marks , that's different.
0 Give him a free transfer
1 Stinker
2 Poor
3 Below average
4 Bit below average
5 Average
6 Bit better than average
7 Above average
8 Good
9 Excellent
10 Triple that man's wages
All I can say is that I hope that's not true, Oggy. I tend to have more faith in the honesty of Charlton fans than that. But then I've always tended to the Rousseauian rather than the Hobbesian view of human nature!