8/10 Performance? Paddy.... Come on!

[Norfolk Dan 308]

Dear Paddy, 

If that performance was an average of 8.09/10 then I'm a Binner! What on earth! Each week we see a standard 7/10 what kind of performance do you need to score 9 or 10 out of 10. 

That was easy a 10/10 from Vrancic what more can you do, at our level and out performing like that. That game was 9/10 all round and in my book a collective 10/10 for the midfield. 

Some of here have suggested that performance will live very long in the memory, I'm sure it will. 

 

[JF 694]

Don’t normally bother reading the articles scoring the players and now I know why. If some of those performances don’t deserve a 10 then I don’t know what does! Embarrassing for a football journalist 

[splendidrush 699]

I think Paddy is a Coventry fan, you've got to make allowances. 

[kick it off 1,948]

12 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

I think Paddy is a Coventry fan, you've got to make allowances. 

Yeah, to be fair, he doesn't actually know what proper football is.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

21 minutes ago, Norfolk Dan said:

Dear Paddy, 

If that performance was an average of 8.09/10 then I'm a Binner! What on earth! Each week we see a standard 7/10 what kind of performance do you need to score 9 or 10 out of 10. 

That was easy a 10/10 from Vrancic what more can you do, at our level and out performing like that. That game was 9/10 all round and in my book a collective 10/10 for the midfield. 

Some of here have suggested that performance will live very long in the memory, I'm sure it will. 

 

Spot on

 

we will remember that game in the same way as we remember Simmo Jackson scoring the winner against Derby in stoppage time.

[interwebme 52]

These player ratings are all a load of rubbish. To start with 5/10 should be average but most journalists seem to consider 7/10 to be average. Then they only seem to vary their ratings by one or two. I don't pay too much attention to them. 

[Trevor Hockey's Beard 526]

1 hour ago, interwebme said:

These player ratings are all a load of rubbish. To start with 5/10 should be average but most journalists seem to consider 7/10 to be average. Then they only seem to vary their ratings by one or two. I don't pay too much attention to them. 

This reminds me of the dubious American wine critic - Robert Parker - who devised his own scoring system for wine, going up to 100 but it starts at 50. What a Binner.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

2 minutes ago, Trevor Hockey's Beard said:

This reminds me of the dubious American wine critic - Robert Parker - who devised his own scoring system for wine, going up to 100 but it starts at 50. What a Binner.

Lol that’s a corker 😂

[ridgeman 130]

1 hour ago, kick it off said:

Yeah, to be fair, he doesn't actually know what proper football is.

If he is a Coventry fan he probably hasn't seen a performance like that before.

[Herman 9,711]

In his defence his is a neutral viewpoint (sort of) so the ratings are probably more realistic than ours, with our yellow and green specs on, would be.

[Yellow and Green 334]

@Herman I agree to an extent - it was a team performance, with no 'Maddison' type performance. Our biggest strength was the fact we gave them very little time on the ball and each player giving 100% for 90 minutes. 

 

Having said that, two goals and an assist for Vrancic probably deserves a 9. The midfield were excellent.

[king canary 7,578]

Marks out of 10 are always a bit arbitrary but I can't quite see how Aarons (excellent throughout) and Krul (flappy throughout) deserve the same score. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I bet if we have a poll of our MOTM there would be several put forward. Opinion is good. It means we can post about it and agree or disagree. Personally I thought in the circumstances that it was a 10/10. We weren't lucky and went away to the top team and put three past them. That has to be 10. But some may criticise certain parts of our play and deduct points.

[Bill 1,788]

1 hour ago, Yellow and Green said:

@Herman I agree to an extent - it was a team performance, with no 'Maddison' type performance. Our biggest strength was the fact we gave them very little time on the ball and each player giving 100% for 90 minutes. 

 

Having said that, two goals and an assist for Vrancic probably deserves a 9. The midfield were excellent.

an assist ?

[king canary 7,578]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

an assist ?

He definitely meant it to go to Pukki like that.

[paddycanary 538]

Stiepermann deserves to be considered for MOTM. Caused headaches all day for both their midfield & defence (and the crowd!), gave a constant outlet, pressed & harassed, held up the play, some lovely passing, directly involved in two goals, showed confidence & leadership. Hard to look beyond Vrancic but Marco gets a 9 from me!

[Yellow and Green 334]

@Bill Listen to his interview - he's claiming it! lol

[westcoastcanary 173]

5 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

But some may criticise certain parts of our play and deduct points.

Exactly. 10/10 = perfection and we were not perfect; even Vrancic wasn't perfect. Anyone watching DF when the camera pans to him on the touchline will know that he is often exasperated during games by players not doing what he thinks they should have done. Yesterday was no exception. Yes, great game (to which Leeds contributed a lot too), great result; but not 10/10.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

But going away to the league leaders and making them 2nd best only warrants an 8/10 westcoast?

[JF 694]

4 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

Exactly. 10/10 = perfection and we were not perfect; even Vrancic wasn't perfect. Anyone watching DF when the camera pans to him on the touchline will know that he is often exasperated during games by players not doing what he thinks they should have done. Yesterday was no exception. Yes, great game (to which Leeds contributed a lot too), great result; but not 10/10.

Surely perfection is relevant? I’d say that performance was as close to perfection as some these players and the club are capable of. Therefore it’s a 10/10 performance. 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I long for the days where we had people posting player ratings from watching on the wireless. Even from watching on ceefax! I've started to compile a set from the match thread. Krul 2.....

[westcoastcanary 173]

16 minutes ago, JF said:

Surely perfection is relevant? I’d say that performance was as close to perfection as some these players and the club are capable of. Therefore it’s a 10/10 performance. 

On that basis, anyone e.g. sitting an exam, who does as well as they possibly could, deserves the highest grade awarded? So my granddaughter, who's a real trier but struggles with maths and physics, deserves the same grade as her classmate Einstein? 

[JF 694]

1 minute ago, westcoastcanary said:

On that basis, anyone e.g. sitting an exam, who does as well as they possibly could, deserves the highest grade awarded? So my granddaughter, who's a real trier but struggles with maths and physics, deserves the same grade as her classmate Einstein? 

Well no because that’s a formal exam with pre set levels of grades. Look at it like the amateur dancers on strictly, do you think when they get a 10 it’s as good as the levels of the pros? Was Vrancic’s performance as good as he is probably capable of? I’d say yes it is so on his level of ability and for the club he’s playing for it’s a 10. Put him in Manchester City’s team with that performance and it’s a 6.

[westcoastcanary 173]

38 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

But going away to the league leaders and making them 2nd best only warrants an 8/10 westcoast?

You can set up any grading scale you like Crabby, and take yesterday's performance as setting the standard for awarding 10/10 if you wish. Paddy Davitt has his own scale, which is clearly different. Any rating system should always set out the criteria used, as do sites like whoscored.com for example. For info, whoscored.com gave us an overall rating of 7.07/10, with Vrancic MOM with an individual rating of 9.3. 

[westcoastcanary 173]

17 minutes ago, JF said:

Well no because that’s a formal exam with pre set levels of grades. Look at it like the amateur dancers on strictly, do you think when they get a 10 it’s as good as the levels of the pros? Was Vrancic’s performance as good as he is probably capable of? I’d say yes it is so on his level of ability and for the club he’s playing for it’s a 10. Put him in Manchester City’s team with that performance and it’s a 6.

When DF, for example, applies the Strictly grading system he uses phrases like "I couldn't ask for any more from the players"; he doesn't say "They played the perfect game". My reply to Crabby above refers.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

westcoast, I never said it should be a 10/10. I just asked why only one player got a 9, and 10 others got an 8/10 

[SwindonCanary 455]

When giving out the scores you have to remember in the first half, although two up, we couldn't pass the ball to each other. 

[splendidrush 699]

32 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

When giving out the scores you have to remember in the first half, although two up, we couldn't pass the ball to each other. 

Amazing how people watch through yellow tinted glasses though hey Swindon. 

[westcoastcanary 173]

5 hours ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

westcoast, I never said it should be a 10/10. I just asked why only one player got a 9, and 10 others got an 8/10 

Indeed you didn't Crabby. I was simply making the general point that you cannot understand, let alone evaluate, any rating without first knowing the criteria on which it is based. If you want to use the criterion of "going to the league leaders and making them look 2nd best" as a basis for awarding every player in our team yesterday a rating of 9/10, you are perfectly entitled to do so. But clearly Paddy Davitt applies different criteria (and I really haven't a clue what they are). 

[ZLF 271]

As farke said in the first half we were poor in possession and allowed them to much space in our half.  It was excellent but also not a 10.

 

We dominated the second half whixh always makes the whole performance seem better.  Onto tahn