Derby V Plymouth Argyle Match Ratings

[CBRammette]

1 hour ago, Birdyabroad said:

I was at the game yesterday on a rare trip to Pride Park for me.

I find some of these ratings bizarre. I'm not sure how anyone could give McGoldrick a 6/6.5??? I thought he was outstanding, you could see that he was a level above most others and came off to a standing ovation. We were still actually winning when he came off, so how he gets below an 8 staggers me.

The other rating that confuses me is Cashin at around a 6. I had a perfect view of the error that led to the final goal and, therefore, can see why his grade has tumbled, but I thought he was as solid as a rock in defence and seemed to win everything, I also thought that he was very confident on the ball when playing-out from the back. If we had won or drawn I personally would have given him an 8/8.5, but now I'm typing this, maybe a 6/6.5 is reflective of the bad error.

I agree that Bird and Hourihane should be low, apart from a great pass in from Bird for the second goal, thought they were chasing shadows for a lot of the game and the 2nd half especially.

The other player that I am low on is Thompson, he looked so behind the game, I have absolutely no idea what he was trying to do?? I thought that he was brought on to man-mark their number 7 (Someone called Butcher who, unfortunately, ran the game) but, alas, he just seemed to run about - How someone could give him a 5, a point/point-and-a-half lower than McG is baffling ?‍♂️

Yes was there also but this thread just reflects the different opinions of those who saw the game in raw score form for poor EllaFella to try and collate with the discussion on the match thread. 

[Ilsonram12]

Wildsmith 6

Knight 6

Forsyth 5

 Cashin 5

Stearman 5

Dobbin 5

McGoldrick 7

Sibley 5

Hourihane 5

Mendez-Laing 7

Bird ? 5 

Collins 6

Barkhuizen 6

Thompson 4

Osula 5

 

 

 

[chadlad]

Wildsmith 6.5 solid enough game

Knight 7 his agression, running and tenacity were missing from our midfield

Forsyth 6 steady

 Cashin 6.5 would have been more but mainly responsible for 2 of their goals

Stearman 7 steady

Dobbin 6 apart from the boots I didn’t notice him

McGoldrick 7.5 class while he was on but needed to come off

Sibley 6 disappointing 

Hourihane 5 anonymous 

Mendez-Laing 8.5 great goal, beast.

Bird ? 6 too quiet, needs to impose himself

Collins 7 scored, worked hard.

Barkhuizen 6.5 disappointing after good recent performances

Thompson 4 needs time out, confidence looks to have gone

Osula 6 unlucky with referee’s decision soon after coming on, looked promising 

Not sure why we looked shattered after 10 minutes of the 2nd half. We looked short of energy and aggression in midfield, subs  didn’t seem to help. Knight in centre midfield please Liam.

[Yani P]

Wildsmith 6.5

Knight 5.5

Forsyth 6

 Cashin 5

Stearman 6

Dobbin 5.5

McGoldrick 7

Sibley 5

Hourihane 5

Mendez-Laing 7.5

Bird ? 5

Collins 6

Barkhuizen 6

Thompson 4.5

Osula 5.5

Edited September 4, 2022 by Yani P

[Steve Buckley’s Dog]

Wildsmith 6.5

Knight 6

Forsyth 6

 Cashin 5 - outstanding first half but…oh dear

Stearman 6

Dobbin 5

McGoldrick 7

Sibley 6

Hourihane 4

Mendez-Laing 7

Bird ? 4

Collins 6

Barkhuizen 5.5

Thompson 4

Osula 5

[BramcoteRam84]

Wildsmith - 6.5 - thought he was good but could’ve done better for the winning goal

Knight - 7

Forsyth - 7

Cashin - 6.5 - marked down for the goal

Stearman 6.5

Dobbin - 5

McGoldrick - 7.5

Sibley - 5.5

Hourihane - 4.5

Mendez-Laing - 7

Bird - 5

Collins - 7

Barkhuizen- 6

Thompson - 4

Osula - 6

 

[Srg]

Wildsmith 7

Knight 7

Forsyth 5

Cashin 5

Stearman 5

Dobbin 3

McGoldrick 7

Sibley 4

Hourihane 5

Mendez-Laing 6

Bird ? 5

Collins 4

Barkhuizen 6

Thompson 3

Osula 3

[goodgollymickbrolly]

Wildsmith 7

Knight 7

Forsyth 6

 Cashin 6

Stearman 6

Dobbin 6

McGoldrick 7

Sibley 6

Hourihane 5

Mendez-Laing 7

Bird ? 6

Collins 6

Barkhuizen 5

Thompson 4

Osula 5

[Carl Sagan]

Full 90 on Rams TV with pen and paper:

Wildsmith 4.5 Does not command his box nearly enough. Saves rebound into dangerous areas. Kicking was off.

Knight 6 Poor second half, when he looked badly out of position (not his fault).

Forsyth 7 Solid performance. Ran Collins close for MotM.

 Cashin 5 Poorest game of the season for the lad.

Stearman 6 Stood up in the second half when others didn't.

Bird ? 5.5 Not enough energy and drive.

Hourihane 5 Not enough energy and drive. Poor set pieces.

Mendez-Laing 6 Took his goal excellently.

McGoldrick 6.5 Mixture of good and bad but on balance slightly more good.

Barkhuizen 5.5 Below par.

Collins 7 MotM. Goal might have been offside but I'll take it. Excellent defensive work too. Odd he was taken off when still was running and leading the line.

 

Subs

Thompson 5 Just seems a boy against men this season. What was he doing on the pitch when the game was in the balance?

Sibley 7 Despite being out of position he had 4 or 5 good drives into the area and some good defensive work. Great attitude.

Osula 5 Odd to bring on a raw rookie with the game in the balance. Showed how valuable Collins is to the team.

Dobbin 5 Pretty invisible.

[Comrade 86]

12 hours ago, Srg said:

Wildsmith 7

Knight 7

Forsyth 5

Cashin 5

Stearman 5

Dobbin 3

McGoldrick 7

Sibley 4

Hourihane 5

Mendez-Laing 6

Bird ? 5

Collins 4

Barkhuizen 6

Thompson 3

Osula 3

[Wolfie20]

Interesting how the marks vary from one poster to another. None of the substitutes contributed anything which could have changed the game yet Sibley scores anything from 4 to 7 - he was much nearer the former, scoring him as a 7 is farcical.

[Srg]

9 hours ago, Wolfie20 said:

Interesting how the marks vary from one poster to another. None of the substitutes contributed anything which could have changed the game yet Sibley scores anything from 4 to 7 - he was much nearer the former, scoring him as a 7 is farcical.

Sibley had his poorest game of the season. He has been our best attacker this season, gets dropped and brought on out wide. Baffling. 

[Crewton]

10 hours ago, Wolfie20 said:

Interesting how the marks vary from one poster to another. None of the substitutes contributed anything which could have changed the game yet Sibley scores anything from 4 to 7 - he was much nearer the former, scoring him as a 7 is farcical.

Osula created a 1-on-1 with the keeper for himself using his strength but was ludicrously penalised for it. 

I agree though that the range of scores for some players in this game is strange. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Wolfie20 said:

Interesting how the marks vary from one poster to another. None of the substitutes contributed anything which could have changed the game yet Sibley scores anything from 4 to 7 - he was much nearer the former, scoring him as a 7 is farcical.

Sub ratings are a minefield (if that isn't over-dramatising it just a little).

Even with 5 subs allowed, you're having to compare someone who's played typically 10-25 minutes with at least 6 players who've played the whole match. So you get 10 minutes of, say, tidy Thompson (5-6) vs. 40 minutes of marauding McGoldrick including a last minute winner (8-9). You pretty much start around a 6 and anything either terrible or brilliant tips the scale dramatically, while the guy completing 95 minutes without incident can hope at best for a 7 and the supersub doesn't even have to be match-fit!

I would say Dobbin on Saturday is a good example of how difficult it is to rate a sub. He got 14 minutes (I think), didn't see much of the ball, didn't do much when he got it. If he'd started and done that, he'd get maybe a 5 at best, but doesn't it feel a bit harsh to give him a 5 when he only got 14 minutes? If Osula (24 minutes) had not been penalised for a nothing challenge, and had gone on to score, what mark would he have got? Quite possibly the same as Collins (70 minutes effort plus a goal) in some cases.

Maybe it's a bit like enlarging a low quality image to make it the same size as your other images - it can look horrendous, or occasionally like a piece of impressionist art. I can see why sometimes the pundits don't give ratings unless the player has passed a specified threshold of minutes.

[WestStandStartTheBounce]

Wildsmith 6 Did OK, better than the previous two games when there were some real dodgy monents

Knight 6 Did what he was asked.

Forsyth 7 If it was on the first half I would have given him 8. he was our best player in that first half and it seemed he was our only option of building an attack. Plymouth realized this and brought on a big lad to compete in the air in the second half.

 Cashin 6 He did make mistakes that cost us but I thought overall he still showed some quality defensive moments

Stearman 6 I thought he had an OK game

Bird  6 Average, a bit of a flat performance.

Hourihane 5 Poor game.

Mendez-Laing 5 His goal was top drawer but other than that I thought he had little involvement in the game. 

McGoldrick 7 I think he did well and provided a constant attacking threat. It was noticeable when he went off how little we had

Barkhuizen 7 He provided good attacking runs from Fozzy's knock downs. Much better used on the right the right though.

Collins 5. Mainly anonymous as usual. Did score but it was an easy chance. 

 

Subs

Thompson 3 Maybe harsh but just didn't influence the midfield one bit. 

Sibley 6 Done OK but couldn't really do it all on his own.

Osula 6 Made a couple of good runs. Showed great strength. Would be good to see him up front with McGoldrick

Dobbin 5 Did nothing of note

[Ellafella]

9 hours ago, Crewton said:

Osula created a 1-on-1 with the keeper for himself using his strength but was ludicrously penalised for it. 

I agree though that the range of scores for some players in this game is strange. 

Absolutely - poor decision by the ref.

[Ellafella]

19 hours ago, Wolfie20 said:

Interesting how the marks vary from one poster to another. None of the substitutes contributed anything which could have changed the game yet Sibley scores anything from 4 to 7 - he was much nearer the former, scoring him as a 7 is farcical.

 

10 hours ago, Srg said:

Sibley had his poorest game of the season. He has been our best attacker this season, gets dropped and brought on out wide. Baffling. 

 

9 hours ago, Crewton said:

Osula created a 1-on-1 with the keeper for himself using his strength but was ludicrously penalised for it. 

I agree though that the range of scores for some players in this game is strange. 

 

8 hours ago, jameso said:

Sub ratings are a minefield (if that isn't over-dramatising it just a little).

Even with 5 subs allowed, you're having to compare someone who's played typically 10-25 minutes with at least 6 players who've played the whole match. So you get 10 minutes of, say, tidy Thompson (5-6) vs. 40 minutes of marauding McGoldrick including a last minute winner (8-9). You pretty much start around a 6 and anything either terrible or brilliant tips the scale dramatically, while the guy completing 95 minutes without incident can hope at best for a 7 and the supersub doesn't even have to be match-fit!

I would say Dobbin on Saturday is a good example of how difficult it is to rate a sub. He got 14 minutes (I think), didn't see much of the ball, didn't do much when he got it. If he'd started and done that, he'd get maybe a 5 at best, but doesn't it feel a bit harsh to give him a 5 when he only got 14 minutes? If Osula (24 minutes) had not been penalised for a nothing challenge, and had gone on to score, what mark would he have got? Quite possibly the same as Collins (70 minutes effort plus a goal) in some cases.

Maybe it's a bit like enlarging a low quality image to make it the same size as your other images - it can look horrendous, or occasionally like a piece of impressionist art. I can see why sometimes the pundits don't give ratings unless the player has passed a specified threshold of minutes.

We have to recognise that some of the variation in player scores both within and between weeks/matches is background "noise" comprising different raters' "thresholds" as well as other factors {eg if somebody favours a player for no apparent treason}. The ratings are never going to be a "pure" reflection of a player's contribution - remember Eustace? Some people believed he never did anything of note - others thought take him out of the team and we will leak more goals {I was in the latter camp} . So fairs points made ...but it's just all part of the "variation". However, that said, over many matches as we aggregate the data, it does become clear that there is a consensus and the noise evens itself out. So, no surprise that NML, Cashin and Sibley are towards the top end consistently {because they play well consistently) and others will fall below on a range.  So, not a perfect system {if you look at different commercial systems you will see "noise" variation so even there - different counts of shots, shots on target, possession etc and they are paying raters and have been trained to use an algorithm to identify "points" ) but good enough to tell us what we are trying to do...identify through consensus of opinion who our best, most consistent performers are and maybe even influence the Club {you never know!}.    

[PistoldPete]

11 hours ago, jameso said:

Sub ratings are a minefield (if that isn't over-dramatising it just a little).

Even with 5 subs allowed, you're having to compare someone who's played typically 10-25 minutes with at least 6 players who've played the whole match. So you get 10 minutes of, say, tidy Thompson (5-6) vs. 40 minutes of marauding McGoldrick including a last minute winner (8-9). You pretty much start around a 6 and anything either terrible or brilliant tips the scale dramatically, while the guy completing 95 minutes without incident can hope at best for a 7 and the supersub doesn't even have to be match-fit!

I would say Dobbin on Saturday is a good example of how difficult it is to rate a sub. He got 14 minutes (I think), didn't see much of the ball, didn't do much when he got it. If he'd started and done that, he'd get maybe a 5 at best, but doesn't it feel a bit harsh to give him a 5 when he only got 14 minutes? If Osula (24 minutes) had not been penalised for a nothing challenge, and had gone on to score, what mark would he have got? Quite possibly the same as Collins (70 minutes effort plus a goal) in some cases.

Maybe it's a bit like enlarging a low quality image to make it the same size as your other images - it can look horrendous, or occasionally like a piece of impressionist art. I can see why sometimes the pundits don't give ratings unless the player has passed a specified threshold of minutes.

Problem for the subs is that what was working for us was a high press... Plymouth always looked lively up front but vulnerable at the back. So attack was the best form of defence.

 

Taking McGoldrick and mendez Laing off was necessary as both were tiring. That's a consequence of the high press. But if they are not replaced like for like we are basically playing a different game. Which didn't work so well.

 

I actually didn't think either Thompson or Sibley did that badly. But they were less effective because the formation after the subs  didn't work against this opponent. We move on. 

 

 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Problem for the subs is that what was working for us was a high press... Plymouth always looked lively up front but vulnerable at the back. So attack was the best form of defence.

 

Taking McGoldrick and mendez Laing off was necessary as both were tiring. That's a consequence of the high press. But if they are not replaced like for like we are basically playing a different game. Which didn't work so well.

 

I actually didn't think either Thompson or Sibley did that badly. But they were less effective because the formation after the subs  didn't work against this opponent. We move on. 

 

 

You may have something there (exhausted personnel and no like-for-like replacements) but I wouldn't have called it a high press, except compared to what we normally do, which can be very standoffish without the ball. That's why McGoldrick was noticeable by his sudden pressurising of opponents which prompted mistakes.

I also didn't think Thompson or Sibley did badly, but Thompson was ineffective (for the reasons you say) and Sibley can play other positions better.

Either way, agreed - on to Morecambe!

[Ellafella]

48 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Problem for the subs is that what was working for us was a high press... Plymouth always looked lively up front but vulnerable at the back. So attack was the best form of defence.

 

Taking McGoldrick and mendez Laing off was necessary as both were tiring. That's a consequence of the high press. But if they are not replaced like for like we are basically playing a different game. Which didn't work so well.

 

I actually didn't think either Thompson or Sibley did that badly. But they were less effective because the formation after the subs  didn't work against this opponent. We move on. 

 

 

Very good analysis. Tactical game won by Plymouth.