Peterborough Match Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The Posh were very unlucky to lose. I cannot believe they are at the bottom of the league. If they continue to play football like last night, they will survive.

Hamer 9 - Superb handling and positioning.
Solly 8 - Assured and capable going forward.
Morro 8 - Solid as a rock.
Cort 7 - Better than Saturday.
Seabourne 7 - Obvious quality, but prefer Wiggins.
Kerkar 6 - Average performance, average player.
Jackson 5 - Dire. Awful corners.
Frimpong 6 - Looked tired and disinterested for large parts.
Pritchard 8 - Starting to really appreciate this guy.
Fuller 7 - Worked hard, great goal.
Kermit 8 - Warrior, looks trim, but a little short on fitness.

Green 7 - Feel sorry for the bloke, deserves to start a match.
Jonsson 6 - Not much to say, really.

Against Millwall I would prefer to see Green on the right with Stephens and Pritchard working the centre of midfield. Either stick Jackson (I don't rate Kerkar) back on the left, or ditch him altogether.
Not a great performance, but certainly a great result.

COYR!
 
SuperChrissyisfantasticPardswasatrocious said:
No Frimpong on Saturday? He and Stephens have to play in the middle IMO. Pritchard in the middle is a big no no.
Click to expand...

Why not Pritchard in the middle, SuperC? Do you prefer to see him out on the right?

I would love to see Green out on the right pinging in crosses for Kermit/Fuller/Hulse.

I am no great fan of Frimpong - yet! I have my doubts over his suitability for the Millwall match. It is just a feeling...
 
People are probably tired of me saying it, but Pritchard follows the ball too much in the middle and often leaves his central midfield partner exposed. In a 5 man midfield he is fine, but I have seen him let both Hollands and Stephens be overrun too often. I think he is better out wide, but as mentioned in the BP thread, I'm unconvinced he is the long term solution. But I think for the 'wall match I would keep him in on the right as he and Frimpong will offer fight in our midfield. Though it has to be Danny Green's turn again soon.
 
As I posted in the Pritch appreciation thread yesterday, he is a real conundrum. I am really growing to appreciate him, but if we play our best players in their best positions I can't get him in the team. Our best four midfielders right to left IMHO are Green, Stephens, Pingpong and err, well, A. N. Other on the left. If we had a proper left sided midfielder, none of Jack, Pritch or Kerkar would be in my team. Harsh I suppose but that's life.

On a happier and less controversial note, looka gain at this to cheer us all up: http://www.footytube.com/video/charlton-athletic-peterborough-united-nov27-145007
 
ybabobmij said:
Just seen the goals on tv. Fuller's an absolute belter but of the "sod it no other options lets hit it" variety and Kermit was offside. Reinforces the view that we got lucky but hey, am I bovvered?
Click to expand...

I've had a look at the video, I think Kermo is just level with Hulse when he gets the touch. I don't think he needed to touch it anyway, I reckon Hulse's shot would have gone in off the post.
 
Captain Blackaddick said:
I've had a look at the video, I think Kermo is just level with Hulse when he gets the touch. I don't think he needed to touch it anyway, I reckon Hulse's shot would have gone in off the post.
Click to expand...
Quite right, Captain. No "daylight".

Credit to Green for the assist and some good work by Kerkar beforehand to wriggle out of a tight spot and open up the play.
 
Kerkar 6 - Average performance, average player.
Jackson 5 - Dire. Awful corners.
Frimpong 6 - Looked tired and disinterested for large parts.
Click to expand...
I wasn't at the match so I cannot comment on the player markings. Indeed I am grateful to those who were there and take the trouble to post.

But I would like to comment on the marking system, and this applies to many who award points, not just this particular poster.

6 points for "average performance, average player" makes sense, although 6 would indicate slightly on the good side of average to me.

But if "average" is 6, how come "dire" ("warning of or having dreadful or terrible consequences; calamitous") is worth only one point less? I would be expecting a score of 0, 1, or 2 at best.

And is "looking tired and disinterested for large parts" considered equivalent to an "average" performance? If so, I fear for our future.
 
eddiefirmani said:
I wasn't at the match so I cannot comment on the player markings. Indeed I am grateful to those who were there and take the trouble to post.

But I would like to comment on the marking system, and this applies to many who award points, not just this particular poster.

6 points for "average performance, average player" makes sense, although 6 would indicate slightly on the good side of average to me.

But if "average" is 6, how come "dire" ("warning of or having dreadful or terrible consequences; calamitous") is worth only one point less? I would be expecting a score of 0, 1, or 2 at best.

And is "looking tired and disinterested for large parts" considered equivalent to an "average" performance? If so, I fear for our future.
Click to expand...



I've often wondered this too. On a 1-10 marking scale do we give four points for things like remembering to put shirts on the right way round or finding the pitch at the end of the tunnel? If someone is crap I'll give them 2 or 3. Most folks' scores seem to start at 5.
 
eddiefirmani said:
I wasn't at the match so I cannot comment on the player markings. Indeed I am grateful to those who were there and take the trouble to post.

But I would like to comment on the marking system, and this applies to many who award points, not just this particular poster.

6 points for "average performance, average player" makes sense, although 6 would indicate slightly on the good side of average to me.

But if "average" is 6, how come "dire" ("warning of or having dreadful or terrible consequences; calamitous") is worth only one point less? I would be expecting a score of 0, 1, or 2 at best.

And is "looking tired and disinterested for large parts" considered equivalent to an "average" performance? If so, I fear for our future.
Click to expand...

Personally my ratings normally go:
1 - Would have to score a number of own goals and deny us scoring a lot ourself.
2 - solely at fault for us losing
3 - cost us goals and offered nothing
4 - consistently made dangerou mistakes and offered nothing
5 - offered nothing/made mistakes/was anonymous
6 - average...

Something along those lines anyway. Hence Kerkar and Jackson often receive a rating of 3 or 4.
 
Hamer 7 - pretty solid performance. Caught most crosses and made a few great saves. Dropped the ball once or twice, but understandable given the wetness of the ball. One minor quibble - on a number of occassions passed the ball short to Cort when defenders were putting him under pressure (Cort seems to have two left [club] feet). Also on a number of occassions picked out Kerkar for his goal kicks, the only player on the pitch with worse ball control than Cort.

Solly 7 - pretty consistent and solid performance. Seemed 'up for it' in an attacking sense too. Once or twice failed to put his foot in, but thats not a criticism of his performance, its simply relative to what we would normally expect.

Cort 6.5 - fairly solid throughout. A few dodgy touches but we come to expect that.

Morrison 7.5 - solid throughout. Disappointed that he'll be missing against Millwall, but the yellow was a fair one.

Seaborne 5 - very very poor positional sense. Was run ragged by the Boro right-mid.

Pritchard 5.5 - nowhere near as complete a performance as it was on Saturday (arguably his best game for us). Didn't really get stuck in and seemed to get in Frimpong's way a lot. Drifted in far too much.

Frimpong 6 - not as good as he was on Saturday. Always seems unaware of the opposition players around him and thus loses the ball a lot. Made a few good crunching tackles though.

Jackson 6.5 - as far as Jackson performances go this season, that was one of his best. Showed some decent control over the ball and a nice bit of passing too. But nothing really to write home about.

Kerkar 4 - same as always. Offered nothing physically, scared of heading the ball, unable to tackle, unable to get into a position to cross. Only plus side was that he got back well to cover for Seaborne any time the latter wandered up field. Would have given away the most clear penalty had the referee and lino's not been so inept.

Kermorgant 7 - won everything in the air, showed good control as always. Clearly not 100% fit yet but I'm very glad to see him back, and to see him on the scoresheet.

Fuller 5 - At times felt myself thinking "Premier League...you're 'aving a laugh". Was incredibly greedy at times, most pertinent example being when he failed to pass to Solly around the half way line, lost the ball and allowed 'Boro to thus counter-attack, very nearly scoring. His goal was a cracker, but it simply glosses over what was a poor poor performance.

---------------

Green 6.5 - Put in some great crosses as he always does. Sadly he seems to try too hard, especially with tackles, and just ended up constantly (and needlessly) tripping/kicking the ankles of opposition players.

Hulse 6 - held the ball up well to bring others into play. Should really have buried the shot which Kermorgant finished though.

Jonsson n/a - too little an amount of time to say. A few dodgy attempts at tackling but that's it.
 
eddiefirmani said:
I wasn't at the match so I cannot comment on the player markings. Indeed I am grateful to those who were there and take the trouble to post.

But I would like to comment on the marking system, and this applies to many who award points, not just this particular poster.

6 points for "average performance, average player" makes sense, although 6 would indicate slightly on the good side of average to me.

But if "average" is 6, how come "dire" ("warning of or having dreadful or terrible consequences; calamitous") is worth only one point less? I would be expecting a score of 0, 1, or 2 at best.

And is "looking tired and disinterested for large parts" considered equivalent to an "average" performance? If so, I fear for our future.
Click to expand...

I actually spent a considerable amount of time responding to your post, eddie, but then I decided to delete it all. I can't believe I merrily typed away in an attempt to explain the factors [of player ability/subjectivity] used when applying points to an individual player's performance.

The long and short of it all is that Frimpong offered an equal contribution to the game as Kerkar - despite the former only applying himself (in my opinion) for sporadic bursts.
It is like a striker scoring the winning goal: his performance may have been dreadful for the other 89 minutes, but his contribution to the bigger picture warrants a 7.
Furthermore, a 5 usually represents a poor/dire/lacklustre performance within the modern standard of player ratings. The word 'dire' is a fair reflection of Jackson's performance last night. To score a 1, 2, 3 or even 4, I would need to view the player's performance as harrowing, horrific or even catastrophic.

I hope this explanation garners your approval, eddie. Or at least a rating of 6...
 
AllHellLetLoose said:
PEA 8 - would have been higher but an unusual lack of historical context
Click to expand...

Thank you, AllHell, your rating is much appreciated.

My previous post was a little spikey, I admit.

I was in the middle of researching the 13th century Prince Bishops of Durham and their exclave of Norhamshire, when I took much time out to justify my ratings of Jackson, Frimpong et al.

You will understand my frustration, of course...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back