With WhoScored, you need to look at players' ratings after sub appearances have been taken out, as they skew ratings lower. Idah made a lot of late cameo appearances with low ratings. His 6 starts have earned him an average rating of around 6.8. The same is true of Sargent, who has 15 starts and 7 sub appearances. With the sub cameos removed he moves up from 6.34 to close to 7, well above Gilmour's average of 6.51 over his 12 starts (he has no sub appearances). This is true of others as well, like McLean, whose starts have earned him an average rating above Gilmour's.
Interesting, thanks. Any idea why Pukki’s stats are so low? Also - my point above - are Gilmour’s stats quite consistent around 6.5 or is it right, my feeling, that he had a couple of excellent games which have dragged that average up whereas normally he is pretty low? Sorry if I can find this out myself, I just haven’t used WhoScored before.
I'd imagine Pukki would be very low because he hardly touched the ball in some games due to awful service for what he needs i.e. through balls, he's not a lump it to him and win knockdowns type player.
I imagine new facilities would help with energy efficiency and I know the academy is focusing on education as well
Yeah he's against some really top quality opposition for Scotland, even my granny could probably get a 7 against the Faroe Islands and she's dead.
It's mainly because of his position, as Zog suggests. Each player is rated for total significant contributions during the game such as interceptions, through balls, shots on target, etc. To balance this goalscorers get a whole point for a goal and assists get half a point (the equivalent of 10 or 5 contributions respectively). That's why Idah got a rating of 7.8 against Everton and Williams got 7.4 after his excellent assist for the winning goal. Similarly Sargent got 8.9 after his brace against Watford as well as his defensive contributions. Rashica got 7.4 and Pukki 7.3 after their assists in that game. Pukki, like the other attacking players, suffered badly from our lack of goals earlier, when as Zog says, he slogged away with few chances to score other than the 5 he did manage out of our 22 games so far. Strikers don't get many other 'contribution' points, so if they're not scoring or assisting, their ratings suffer. One further point is that outfield players lose a contribution point for every goal conceded and you only have to look at our goals against to see why our ratings have suffered.
As for Gilmour's ratings this gives some idea: His rating against Southampton was boosted by half point for his assist and another .2 for our 2 goals scored. The two Scotland results were for 2-0 wins, thus boosting his ratings and I think those boost his rating overall for us. If that's true, his ratings for us are even lower. He did have a good match against Denmark as I recall from watching it. If you click on any player in our squad list you get an analysis and this list of the player's last 10 matches at the bottom. Here's Lees-Melou for comparison without any boost from international matches:
Thanks Rick - so that suggests at least for the extract that the reason Gilmour’s average is higher than expected is because of his one match (Southampton) where he really excelled. I’d agree with that, we need that Gilmour, whereas for the most part we’ve had the 6.2-6.3 Gilmour. He’s certainly got it in him, just I fear it might be too early in his career to really help us. So his valuation will also be a function of people’s estimate of his potential as well as his present performances.
I found this remaining fixture list for the bottom 8 teams on the Pinkun board: please log in to view this image please log in to view this image The following games have to be rearranged: Villa Vs Burnley Wolves Vs Watford Burnley Vs Everton Leeds Vs Villa Everton Vs Newcastle Leicester Vs Norwich Southampton Vs Newcastle Everton Vs Leicester Burnley Vs Leicester
I watched extended highlights of it and both sides had chances, but they both seemed more scored of losing than anything else
A quick look at who might feasibly be dragged into the relegation scrap... Everton's 4-1 win against an essentially full-strength Brentford is certainly interesting. No Dele Alli or van de Beek in the squad either. I really hope that's down to Brentford being in a tailspin, rather than Everton getting a new manager bounce. Everton have Newcastle, Leeds and Southampton in their next 3 games. Fail to win in that period and they could be properly sucked into the relegation battle. Couple of good results and they'll pull clear. Brentford meanwhile have worse form than us over the last 6 or 10 games, conceding more goals too. They play some big games in their next 6, including Newcastle, Burnley and ourselves. Since the 6th November, Palace have only beaten Everton and a severely depleted Norwich. They have plenty of kind fixtures coming up though, including still having to play Watford twice. Would be nice if they're in a generous mood midweek, then start to beat teams around us!
Brentford's tailspin is serious as they've lost their last 5 games, which means we've picked up 6 points on them in the last 2 weeks. The same is true for Everton, though they do have 2 games in hand. Brentford seem to have lost the adrenaline rush from promotion. The same was true for Lambert's team back in 2012, but they had enough points to still survive. Time will tell whether that's the case for Brentford, but we do have a game in hand on them. I still think the battle will be in the bottom 4, but Everton, Leeds and Brentford could still be dragged into the mix if we continue to improve.
I don't have anything really against Brentford, but if media darlings Brentford getting relegated with 'they don't deserve to be in the premier league' Norwich survive it would be sweet
McLean makes a good point about the increased resilience in the side and the incremental improvements that have helped as well: https://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/norwich-city/mclean-relishing-ncfcs-impressive-revival-8671488
