-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
England v Italy match ratings
- Thread starter milo
- Start date
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I appreciate your effort Milo but I will not give individual ratings as I watched with the sound off and was not sure who was doing what half the time.
Thought we played quite well. Kept the ball better the usual and you could not say it was an old fashioned English performance, just Italy took their chances. Did think some of our shooting and I noticed Rooney was one of the culprits was well off.
Sterling looked good.
I was half watching it and half playing poker online. Did think we looked a little better then previous England teams.
Thought we played quite well. Kept the ball better the usual and you could not say it was an old fashioned English performance, just Italy took their chances. Did think some of our shooting and I noticed Rooney was one of the culprits was well off.
Sterling looked good.
I was half watching it and half playing poker online. Did think we looked a little better then previous England teams.
El Guepardo
Rafael Van Der Vaart
Rooney zero
milo
Jack L. Jones
Quite like the new system, nice one!
I'm surprised to see Welbeck getting high scores from everyone (incl. the media) - what are the specific things he did to deserve a high score? All I remember from him was going round a defender and almost putting Sturridge in with that deflected cross... at least Rooney actually got an assist, with a great cross on his weaker foot.
Thought Gerrard was decent enough too - good long passes, which is pretty much what he's there to do if playing alongside Henderson or Wheelchair.
Also think Baines' low scores are unjustified - constantly left 2 on 1 due to an poor defensive setup from us. Not sure what Roy's plan was, constantly not tracking their fullbacks. Cost us the second goal.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Thanks. If doing the ratings like this proves popular, we'll carry on doing this for Spurs this season.
I think that Welbeck defended well from the front and forced Italy into errors. He faded in the second half but I think that he did enough to retain his place on Thursday.
I agree on Baines and the lack of support he got. The flip side of this is that if Rooney had been tracking his man, he would not have been in space to receive Sterling's pass which lead to the England goal.
El Guepardo
Rafael Van Der Vaart
I wish that I'd known how to give Rooney a zero! He abandoned his defensive duties and wasted every shot and his corner taking was awful!
As for Wellbeck, he defended well, worked hard and I think he impressed as less had been expected from him.
As for Wellbeck, he defended well, worked hard and I think he impressed as less had been expected from him.
I keep on hearing this, even though Italy's winning goal came from Welbeck 'abandoning his defensive duties' in the same way that Rooney did. (As it happens I actually think neither abandoned their duties - think it was just the way Roy set the team up).
Feels like Welbeck's becoming the new Milner - in the team for his defensive abilities even though he's playing as a wide midfielder / striker.
Milo I agree regarding our goal, but if you're not going to have your widemen track the full-backs, then I think you at least need your CMs to drop and shuffle (ala Tim!) a bit more to pick up the fullback or wideman.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
8 - Jagielka, Sterling, Sturridge
7 - Rest
6 - Cahill, Welbeck
5 - Rooney
7 - Rest
6 - Cahill, Welbeck
5 - Rooney
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Racist
I think you have to allow for the "football fans never consider 5 to be average" rule. Not sure why, but when someone putting in an average performance gets a 5 people will ask what they did wrong.
In the context of football ratings, 6 is an average performance. So that suggests that his ratings were almost entirely average or below and that the small number of votes for 5 is an anomaly. Actually, if you look into the psychology of voting for football ratings, you'll probably find that votes for 5 are low in general.
jts1882
Dean Richards
I think it ties in with giving a 110% ... Gary. Even an average player is expected to make the extra effort to be better than average. When he doesn't it's considered disappointing, so when a fan says a player was average he usually means poor.
Looking at the England ratings 6 seems the par score for that game, with those considered to have a good game getting higher (Sterling, Welbeck, Barkley) and those a bad game lower (Wishere). But I think most people think it was a decent performance by England so perhaps 6 means slightly better than expected. We'll see in the other games, although I'm hoping not to find out any more about what is considered average.
Looking at the England ratings 6 seems the par score for that game, with those considered to have a good game getting higher (Sterling, Welbeck, Barkley) and those a bad game lower (Wishere). But I think most people think it was a decent performance by England so perhaps 6 means slightly better than expected. We'll see in the other games, although I'm hoping not to find out any more about what is considered average.
Last edited:
Not in this case, but even when there's a 0 included people don't consider 5 average.
We had this discussion on a previous incarnation of this board and the general feeling is that 5 seems a bit mean for a player that's done nothing wrong - even if it is average.