Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
STATBANK: Reading F.C. 0-2 Charlton Athletic
lancashire lad
Posts: 15,699
many thanks to the 39 Lifers who gave marks
edited at 3.40pm as I originally gave Solly 7.64 when it should have been 7.46
edited at 3.40pm as I originally gave Solly 7.64 when it should have been 7.46
12
Comments
-
Great stats. Really pleased for Dillon after a bit shaky the week before. 7.75 is a very high average!
The offense stats (have we turned American btw, I will pretend said attacking!) are interesting. However a bit misleading having them per game. per minute played would be more relevant. It shows Aneke not being effective at shooting but has great control. I realise this would be a hell of a lot more work and impractical but we need to be aware when interpreting.
Oztumer didn't have 1 bad control in the game he played.1 -
Redman - yes I agree and my apologies for going "American" it won't happen again3
-
Great stats as usual. Two surprises: (1) Dillon had a great game but Lockyer wasn’t MOM. (2) That Leko was so low...0
-
yes I thought similar, but with the lowest mark of 7.64 you could say that no-one had a low markcafc-west said:Great stats as usual. Two surprises: (1) Dillon had a great game but Lockyer wasn’t MOM. (2) That Leko was so low...2 -
Yes very true and rightly so!lancashire lad said:
yes I thought similar, but with the lowest mark of 7.64 you could say that no-one had a low markcafc-west said:Great stats as usual. Two surprises: (1) Dillon had a great game but Lockyer wasn’t MOM. (2) That Leko was so low...0 -
Solly's ave means should be shown higher up 4 places.1
-
The player average is 3 points higher than the referee's score
0 -
Actually both Purrington and Leko, who scored the 1st goal, have the lowest mark only 7.53.lancashire lad said:
yes I thought similar, but with the lowest mark of 7.64 you could say that no-one had a low markcafc-west said:Great stats as usual. Two surprises: (1) Dillon had a great game but Lockyer wasn’t MOM. (2) That Leko was so low...
Then you blink, look at it again - and think, "only 7.53?"
We've had MOM scoring 7.53 before ..... must have been some team performance v Reading if that was the lowest score!
0 -
may mistake it is actually 7.46bolloxbolder said:Solly's ave means should be shown higher up 4 places.1 -
Brilliant score for Dillon0
-
Sponsored links:
-
No weak links on Saturday.
Every player in credit.
No one being slagged off.
If only it could always be like that ?
2 -
You can’t really argue with a sample result but...
very suprised Williams was our lowest ranked midfielder. I thought he was arguably our best midfielder during his hour on the pitch, with Gallagher then having a stronger last half hour. Surprised Field was scored higher.
Thats probably one of the tightest spreads between lowest to highest mark that I can remember, which shows just how much the fans reflected this performance as a ‘team effort’3 -
I thought Williams grew into the game but started with a few heavy touches. And of course he didn't play the whole game. Doesn't mean he played badly though.1
-
I wasn't there but slightly surprised Dillon was MOTM as usually when that happens it's because the team has been under the cosh all game and it was only save after save that prevented a heavy defeat, and Saturday's game didn't seem to fit that pattern. Reading only had 3 shots on target for a start0
-
Amazing that Lockyer committed no fouls at all given his position and combative nature. Shows he has a cool mind and good timing in the challenge.6
-
I think what pushed it in his favour was the timing of his first half injury time save. Many people, me included, probably suspect it was the foundation our victory was built on. And it was a terrific save.killerandflash said:I wasn't there but slightly surprised Dillon was MOTM as usually when that happens it's because the team has been under the cosh all game and it was only save after save that prevented a heavy defeat, and Saturday's game didn't seem to fit that pattern. Reading only had 3 shots on target for a start0 -
Last week some were slating Philips and calling for Amos.
Funny old game.5 -
Some were saying Lockyer is rubbish two weeks ago4
-
I didn't put in marks as I'd have just scored them all 8/8.5. A true team performance.0
-
In such a situation please do mark as it mattersWeegie Addick said:I didn't put in marks as I'd have just scored them all 8/8.5. A true team performance.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Now the dust has settled - I could have slightly overmarked a little. Simply because we were excellent in the second half. Whilst not being terrible, we were not our best in the first. But as the song goes, it's not how you start but how you finish!0
-
Only 39 people out of an away crowd of over 2k is not a great sample size I'm afraid. Perhaps the voting could be open longer as I for one didnt get a chance to do it before voting closed......and I certainly wouldnt have made Dills MOTM.
0 -
sorry Golfie but compiling the stats does take a fair amount of time out of my busy day and I like to get the stats out in a reasonable time after the match. If you can't spare 5 minutes to do your marks between Saturday 5pm and Monday lunchtime then so be it!golfaddick said:Only 39 people out of an away crowd of over 2k is not a great sample size I'm afraid. Perhaps the voting could be open longer as I for one didnt get a chance to do it before voting closed......and I certainly wouldnt have made Dills MOTM.5 -
I agree that just 39 people providIng marks was a bit disappointing given there would have been hundreds of members at the game or watching online. Would be interested to know why so many don’t have an interest in providIng marks (though then again I doubt they will be reading this!)golfaddick said:Only 39 people out of an away crowd of over 2k is not a great sample size I'm afraid. Perhaps the voting could be open longer as I for one didnt get a chance to do it before voting closed......and I certainly wouldnt have made Dills MOTM.
Disagree strongly re: leaving voting open longer. The further away from the game it takes Lanc Lad to generate and publish the outcome the less relevant it becomes. 2 days is more than enough time for the vast majority7 -
Jason Pearce Statbank POTM for August then. I didn’t count Oztumer since he only got a mark against Forest.0
-
I don't tend to leave marks as they are somewhat meaningless with nothing to compare too. No one knows what my criteria for a 7 is and I don't know anyone else's. It's completely arbitrary what number I say. I think there should be a scale that people can use so marks are a bit more consistentAFKABartram said:
I agree that just 39 people providIng marks was a bit disappointing given there would have been hundreds of members at the game or watching online. Would be interested to know why so many don’t have an interest in providIng marks (though then again I doubt they will be reading this!)golfaddick said:Only 39 people out of an away crowd of over 2k is not a great sample size I'm afraid. Perhaps the voting could be open longer as I for one didnt get a chance to do it before voting closed......and I certainly wouldnt have made Dills MOTM.
Disagree strongly re: leaving voting open longer. The further away from the game it takes Lanc Lad to generate and publish the outcome the less relevant it becomes. 2 days is more than enough time for the vast majority1 -
That doesn't matter though as long as the sample is big enough. One person is really generous, another is really mean but as long as they're CONSISTENTLY generous or mean it's useful datajacob_CAFC said:
I don't tend to leave marks as they are somewhat meaningless with nothing to compare too. No one knows what my criteria for a 7 is and I don't know anyone else's. It's completely arbitrary what number I say. I think there should be a scale that people can use so marks are a bit more consistentAFKABartram said:
I agree that just 39 people providIng marks was a bit disappointing given there would have been hundreds of members at the game or watching online. Would be interested to know why so many don’t have an interest in providIng marks (though then again I doubt they will be reading this!)golfaddick said:Only 39 people out of an away crowd of over 2k is not a great sample size I'm afraid. Perhaps the voting could be open longer as I for one didnt get a chance to do it before voting closed......and I certainly wouldnt have made Dills MOTM.
Disagree strongly re: leaving voting open longer. The further away from the game it takes Lanc Lad to generate and publish the outcome the less relevant it becomes. 2 days is more than enough time for the vast majority3
