So, BS. One bad mistake from the GK means that he drops four points below average? – Hardly. The rest of his game was – well – average.
Bedeau made the worst mistakes of any defender throughout the game and you suggest MOTM?
(One goal-losing blooper each from the GK and the three CBs, BTW.)
I find this kind of marking frustrating. I have spent years of my professional life looking at and using comparative marking and this is nothing more than gut reactions.
If marks are awarded randomly – they have no value whatsoever.
Firstly, the teamwork display was lamentable but the players were actually trying. The fact that ball control was so ordinary and that we gifted the ball away so much was mainly due to lack of movement off the ball. I would suggest that this is a management issue. Incidentally, if I were giving a mark for teamwork last night, that would be a three.
If we are to mark players, we have to use a consistent and not a random system.
I thought we had pretty much all agreed that six is average. In any match – win or lose – most players should get a six.
If players as a whole average a five in any given game then they are below the standard required. Like the spell we are in currently – this should lead to multiple defeats.
If there are a number of fours mixed in – two whole notches below average – you will be getting what we are seeing at the moment with bad defeats.
(Hardly the time to mention this but a good performance earns a seven.)
I’m not saying that marks below four should never be given but they rather suggest a performance when the player has been responsible for conceding three prior to being sent off.
Fives, sixes and sevens are the norm. The official system for marking refs is not dissimilar. (Or didn’t used to be, at least.)
We are substantially below that at the moment – and that is why fours can legitimately come into play.
A couple of bad mistakes in an otherwise average performance will probably realise a five. You cannot take a mark off every time a player falls below perfection.
