Mines pretty similar to yours Shirty. Not sure I can remember ever giving a ten though. On a few occasions I've gone under four, that requires an absolute stinker though and/or doing something reckless. Agree with Bob about marking wins higher.
My starting point is probably 6.5. My observation is that I mark more narrowly and less emotively than a lot of people on here. Does my head in when we lose and people start giving 0-3s because they are pissed off that we lost. I know, it’s all subjective etc
I give the overall game a mark and then mark each player according to the overall mark. As a member of the goalkeeping union I find it a trifle annoying when the goalie doesn't receive a decent mark because there were no shots on target, he still has to protect his goal and distribute the ball and should be marked against that- rant over!
10 More or less once a season exceptional. 9 Excellent 8 Very Good 7 Good 6 Average 5 Below Average 4 Poor 3 A liability 2 Total joke. 1 Should never play for us again.
If a keeper (last night for example) doesn't have a save to make, I'll give a 7 rather than 6. 6 seems a bit low for a clean sheet.
he might not of had to make a save but he didn't do anything wrong
The goalkeeper is part of the defensive unit - and if they've all done well to ensure the keeper has a quiet game, then the keeper should get credit for that also. We should remember that he's the one commanding his box and playing a big role in organising his defence.
A lot of the match is played off ball. The keeper plays his part in that too.
On my scale 5 is satisfactory anything less; 4 = unsatisfactory / poor, 3 = very poor, 2 = diabolical / atrocious, 1= get a new day job. 6 = above average, 7 = Good, 8 = Very good, 9 = excellent and 10 = Should be playing for top European team.
I tend not to mark high, I never did when undertaking staff appraisals during my working life as they devalue really outstanding performances.
What is everyone’s starting point on when you score marks on a Charlton game you have watched?
Personally everyone is a 6 (Average) then I judge up or below from there.
4: Very Poor 5: Poor 6: Average 7: Good 8: Excellent 9: Superb 10: Out of this world
I remember when I was growing up in the late 60s & 70s, that this was the standard used on the sports pages of newspapers, the football magazines, etc. Only the MOM got the highest score, name in bold.
When I look at the Statbank that has just been released for the Ipswich match the overall averages are perhaps a half a point higher for a few of the players than I gave but directionally seem reasonable to me. The exception is for Craig MacG where others have pointed out he has been unfairly marked down because he didn't have to save anything.
My starting point is probably 6.5. My observation is that I mark more narrowly and less emotively than a lot of people on here. Does my head in when we lose and people start giving 0-3s because they are pissed off that we lost. I know, it’s all subjective etc
No point doing 1-10 if you're starting point is 6.5, Might as well do 3-10.
My starting point is probably 6.5. My observation is that I mark more narrowly and less emotively than a lot of people on here. Does my head in when we lose and people start giving 0-3s because they are pissed off that we lost. I know, it’s all subjective etc
No point doing 1-10 if you're starting point is 6.5, Might as well do 3-10.
My staring point is 5, which is average.
Between 1 and 10 surely 5.5 is average?
Just being pedantic... I start at 6 so can't criticise.
My starting point is probably 6.5. My observation is that I mark more narrowly and less emotively than a lot of people on here. Does my head in when we lose and people start giving 0-3s because they are pissed off that we lost. I know, it’s all subjective etc
No point doing 1-10 if you're starting point is 6.5, Might as well do 3-10.
My staring point is 5, which is average.
Between 1 and 10 surely 5.5 is average?
Just being pedantic... I start at 6 so can't criticise.
Rounding down is being generous in the players favour similar to the taxman’s approach when calculating a tax code to the nearest £ 😉
If as a marking community we tend to be one to one and a half marks of each other either way, I think that ultimately leads to a reliable reflection on player performance.
My starting point is 6 probably cos of reading football league weekly, their norm seems to be 6. I tend not to get very high or very low. lowest I've given is 4.5 I believe and I think a 8.5 high, agree with Bob Munro some let the outcome of the match affect marking.
However I must have been suffering with acid reflux yesterday when I marked the Ipswich game. The standout performer's I now think we're Gilbey & Washy, somehow I marked them at 6.5/7. Will " endeavor to persevere " as the Indian chief said in the Clint Eastwood film.
I tend to start at 6.5 if someone's been acceptable, but no more.
In the case of a keeper who has had no chance to shine due to having little to do, I give them a reasonable make such as the 7 I gave McG last light, as anything less seems unfair.
I do try to be fair with my marks, so that individuals don't get undeserved credit when a team plays well, but similarly don't get punished if they've been fine in a terrible performance. Looking back I only gave Davison a 6.5 for the Plymouth game, as while the team was excellent, he was average.
I probably take the opposition into account too, a 1-0 win over Rotherham is likely to be a much better performance than a 1-0 win over Doncaster.
Comments
A good result and team performance and the marks are all relatively higher than if it were a bad result and good team performance.
he might not of had to make a save but he didn't do anything wrong
As a member of the goalkeeping union I find it a trifle annoying when the goalie doesn't receive a decent mark because there were no shots on target, he still has to protect his goal and distribute the ball and should be marked against that- rant over!
9 Excellent
8 Very Good
7 Good
6 Average
5 Below Average
4 Poor
3 A liability
2 Total joke.
1 Should never play for us again.
A lot of the match is played off ball. The keeper plays his part in that too.
Only the MOM got the highest score, name in bold.
It's so logical and consistant.
My staring point is 5, which is average.
Just being pedantic... I start at 6 so can't criticise.
Gilbey last night played as well as a league one midfielder could do for me therefore he got a 10
I tend not to get very high or very low. lowest I've given is 4.5 I believe and I think a 8.5 high, agree with Bob Munro some let the outcome of the match affect marking.
However I must have been suffering with acid reflux yesterday when I marked the Ipswich game.
The standout performer's I now think we're Gilbey & Washy, somehow I marked them at 6.5/7.
Will " endeavor to persevere " as the Indian chief said in the Clint Eastwood film.
6 is better than.average on a scale of 1-10.
In the case of a keeper who has had no chance to shine due to having little to do, I give them a reasonable make such as the 7 I gave McG last light, as anything less seems unfair.
I do try to be fair with my marks, so that individuals don't get undeserved credit when a team plays well, but similarly don't get punished if they've been fine in a terrible performance. Looking back I only gave Davison a 6.5 for the Plymouth game, as while the team was excellent, he was average.
I probably take the opposition into account too, a 1-0 win over Rotherham is likely to be a much better performance than a 1-0 win over Doncaster.