Well done Lancs, as always. Great set of scores befitting a great performance, and harsh to pick out a MOTM, so glad it's someone who has been such a key part of the turnaround. Well earned first MOTM for him, though Lee surely will get one soon.
The ref getting an over generous mark, based on the result and team performance.
The same could arguably said about Davison too
Really the ref was good and when you compare him to the ones in last two games brilliant. Davison deserves a decent mark because of the work rate he put in. Defending from the front!
But I guess that's the winning against a good team bonus. Marks get inflated. Gilbey 8.31 - yeah he made some decent forward runs but...I'm being very churlish here though. Enjoy the moment yadda yadda. But the Statbank must give a FAIR REFLECTION
But I guess that's the winning against a good team bonus. Marks get inflated. Gilbey 8.31 - yeah he made some decent forward runs but...I'm being very churlish here though. Enjoy the moment yadda yadda. But the Statbank must give a FAIR REFLECTION
It gives a reflection based on all posters so it's as fair as you're gonna get.
But I guess that's the winning against a good team bonus. Marks get inflated. Gilbey 8.31 - yeah he made some decent forward runs but...I'm being very churlish here though. Enjoy the moment yadda yadda. But the Statbank must give a FAIR REFLECTION
Yeah, but many posters mark players based on the emotion they feel, rather than the actual performance of the players they've watched. It's ever been thus.
Lancs has often said that he reckons it averages out over a season. Anyway, as many have commented before, it's just opinions.
I know, I know. I guess this is payback for those who put in excellent performances when we lose or draw (it does happen)
I reckon a lot of Purrington bonus marks come because people think he isn't a striker so when he scores it's like an amazing wondrous miracle or something. When will they realise he IS a striker ffs
But I guess that's the winning against a good team bonus. Marks get inflated. Gilbey 8.31 - yeah he made some decent forward runs but...I'm being very churlish here though. Enjoy the moment yadda yadda. But the Statbank must give a FAIR REFLECTION
We beat the division leaders comfortably so it's reasonable to assume at least some of them, if not all of them, played well without doing anything amazing like scoring.
Like the studio commentators I think the possession stats are wrong....even Walsh said, Im not having that, was the statistician asleep half the game....I thought we had more of the ball first half and perhaps they shaded the second.
The ref getting an over generous mark, based on the result and team performance.
The same could arguably said about Davison too
Really the ref was good and when you compare him to the ones in last two games brilliant. Davison deserves a decent mark because of the work rate he put in. Defending from the front!
Was Davison actually worse last night than on Saturday?
Comments
The same could arguably said about Davison too
Davison deserves a decent mark because of the work rate he put in. Defending from the front!
It's ever been thus.
Lancs has often said that he reckons it averages out over a season.
Anyway, as many have commented before, it's just opinions.
I reckon a lot of Purrington bonus marks come because people think he isn't a striker so when he scores it's like an amazing wondrous miracle or something. When will they realise he IS a striker ffs
Agree 10s might be a bit much but that overall rating seems fair as it was best game for us by a long stretch.
His score will be well down though...