| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! 21:44 - Mar 3 with 6039 views | Wallingford_Boy |
Every man did their job.
Superb. |  |
| |  |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 22:01 - Mar 4 with 700 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 17:56 - Mar 4 by tractor_lady |
Exactly this... clearly has skill but rather than shoot he often takes one touch too many and is dispossessed and other times a pass is clearly the best option and he holds onto the ball.... Iron those bits out and he is a good little player but without the occasional brilliance Philogene brings |
He really is an outstanding player in this league to so frequently get those things wrong and still have 12 goals and an assist in 1,761 minutes played.
Philogene who you seem to suggest is a far better performer has 9 and 2 in 1,551 minutes so must be even worse with his end product! |  |
| |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 01:14 - Mar 6 with 559 views | armchaircritic59 |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 22:00 - Mar 4 by Wallingford_Boy |
Exactly this!
Thank you Frimmers!
It’s getting a bit dull justifying my perfectly reasonable post, but he had one poor game, we won, we played well, it’s a good thing! There is no scapegoat.
And it’s not someone who has been one of our better players this season! |
" And it’s not someone who has been one of our better players this season! " He isn't? |  | | |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 01:17 - Mar 6 with 559 views | armchaircritic59 |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 17:58 - Mar 4 by DavoIPB |
Disagree with almost all the comments on here. Thought he was very poor all game. Lost the ball almost every time then fouled the opposition. Not sure he got past their right back once. Not one good cross and gave the ball away on the edge of our area more than once. |
Should have gone to Specsavers. | | | |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 07:23 - Mar 6 with 510 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 17:14 - Mar 4 by Wallingford_Boy |
Nope not for me, as a lot have said on here and the ratings show, he was way off it last night.
But hey, it’s one game, he’s been awesome all season! |
Independent ratings do not agree with you, and in fact have Clark with one of the highest ratings for the night. Fan led ratings are notoriously skewed by partisan, unconscious (and often conscious) bias. | | | |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 08:02 - Mar 6 with 490 views | Churchman |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 20:24 - Mar 4 by Wallingford_Boy |
A scapegoat?! What a very odd take!
As I’ve said a million times on here now, he’s been exceptional this season, last night he was not.
It’s a simple as that.
Understand? |
I understand your words, but I believe you are wrong. He was excellent the other night. |  | | |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 08:33 - Mar 6 with 458 views | Wallingford_Boy |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 08:02 - Mar 6 by Churchman |
I understand your words, but I believe you are wrong. He was excellent the other night. |
Haha we are still going on this one!!
Bless you all. | |
| |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 08:56 - Mar 6 with 446 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 07:23 - Mar 6 by SuffolkPunchFC |
Independent ratings do not agree with you, and in fact have Clark with one of the highest ratings for the night. Fan led ratings are notoriously skewed by partisan, unconscious (and often conscious) bias. |
SP you didnt respond the other day tho about fotmob ratings.
How are they so high when he had such low stats in regards to what he did with the ball and off it.. you pointed out he had a lot of touches which makes sense as he ran alot and we passed to him a lot. But did that one moment ( missed chance) increase his ratings to such an effect as it show 2 missed chances plus 1 woodwork..
Its a genuine question. How can he get a 7.8 rating if all the stats were low... it wouod be nice to understand how fotmob works. |  |
| |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 09:56 - Mar 6 with 423 views | Churchman |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 19:07 - Mar 4 by armchaircritic59 |
Ah yes, a faction of our supporters love a good scapegoat. Muric, Philogene, Jack Clarke ( first time round ), Kasey McAteer, and now JC back again, for working his butt off, but missing a simple chance in a game we won. Clubs top scorer, penalty king etc. Some are worse than extremely hard to please. |
You forgot Egeli. He’s well and truly on the podium of hate.
Much if it is of course because we paid a fee for a player or they replaced somebody they liked. Muric was a classic for that. He was dead meat right from the off because a fee was paid and he replaced Hladky, a fan favourite despite being a bang average keeper at best. Tbf good with his feet.
The players you mention - all cost money so straight on to the ‘list’, even though the fees had nothing to do with them.
Back to Clarke I keep reading he lost the ball a lot. Yes, he lost it more than the Hull players. Why? Because they never had the ball in the first place! In relation to his involvement in the game he kept possession well. Did he try things and lose the ball sometimes? Yes - and so did Nunez. The latter actually loses the ball a fair amount but escapes the vitriol and rightly so. He is forever trying things and keeping the tempo going. Clarke in a different way does the same.
Is JC a better player than Philogene? Depends how you view it. He gets involved more and is more flexible in where he can play, but JP has marginally pure ability in my view. They are both terrific players and I just enjoy seeing them play - especially compared to the dross served up during the Evans black hole years.
JC played well the other night. As you rightly point out, some people are extremely hard to please. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 10:12 - Mar 6 with 413 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 09:56 - Mar 6 by Churchman |
You forgot Egeli. He’s well and truly on the podium of hate.
Much if it is of course because we paid a fee for a player or they replaced somebody they liked. Muric was a classic for that. He was dead meat right from the off because a fee was paid and he replaced Hladky, a fan favourite despite being a bang average keeper at best. Tbf good with his feet.
The players you mention - all cost money so straight on to the ‘list’, even though the fees had nothing to do with them.
Back to Clarke I keep reading he lost the ball a lot. Yes, he lost it more than the Hull players. Why? Because they never had the ball in the first place! In relation to his involvement in the game he kept possession well. Did he try things and lose the ball sometimes? Yes - and so did Nunez. The latter actually loses the ball a fair amount but escapes the vitriol and rightly so. He is forever trying things and keeping the tempo going. Clarke in a different way does the same.
Is JC a better player than Philogene? Depends how you view it. He gets involved more and is more flexible in where he can play, but JP has marginally pure ability in my view. They are both terrific players and I just enjoy seeing them play - especially compared to the dross served up during the Evans black hole years.
JC played well the other night. As you rightly point out, some people are extremely hard to please. |
Nunez on Tuesday put 9 balls into the final third. 2 shots on target 3 off target.
2 tackles. 3 recoveries. Made 5 out of 7 long. Balls. Etc.
There was a lot to nunez performance Tuesday.
Egeli.. what positives from an overall performance are you wanting people to see
If its seeing egeli as a developing player.. mostly everyone agrees with that
But based on actual current performances they are incredibly poor
Tuesday
1 pass into final third
1 tackle
0 recoveries
1 successful dribble out of 4
Egeli imo will be great in a few years.. but i dont feel its correct to bemoan anyone not rating him at present. And I know people have issues with stats... but egeli was purchased off the back of stats so its fair to compare what he gives in comparison to other players imo. | |
| |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 10:23 - Mar 6 with 391 views | itfcsuth |
Surprised this has so many downvotes, presumably due to the way Clarke has been singled out here.
But I found his performance very frustrating. Thought his decision making was really poor, and with JC, he's either stumbling and bundling his dribbles, or he really glides past people, it was certainly the former on this occasion. |  | | |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 14:19 - Mar 6 with 320 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 08:56 - Mar 6 by FrimleyBlue |
SP you didnt respond the other day tho about fotmob ratings.
How are they so high when he had such low stats in regards to what he did with the ball and off it.. you pointed out he had a lot of touches which makes sense as he ran alot and we passed to him a lot. But did that one moment ( missed chance) increase his ratings to such an effect as it show 2 missed chances plus 1 woodwork..
Its a genuine question. How can he get a 7.8 rating if all the stats were low... it wouod be nice to understand how fotmob works. |
I didn't respond further because you edited your original post, and completely removed the reference to the number of passes he made being one of the reasons he's not performed well. As I'd responded to that point, and then you removed the comment (and therefore relevance), I sort of lost the will to live (well reply).
I'll address it now though.
- I don't work for FotMob, so can't say how their people rate players
- you focused on the lower performing attributes; others were better
- the player rating was not high only on Fotmob; Sofascore and Whoscored also rated him highly
- all agreed that he was towards the top quartile of performers
As I have mentioned previously, fans with a vested interest are notoriously partisan and biased in their ratings of their favourite or not so-favourite players (and who falls into each category will change from time to time), so fan driven rating will always have an element of conscious or unconscious bias. I therefore put more value in independent ratings. The fact that the first 3 I checked were in general agreement that Clark had a reasonable good game (not MOTM ofc) makes me more inclined in that direction, counter to the OP who implied he was the worse performer.
How did I rate Clarke? I thought he did a lot of good things, created chances, drew players to him opening up space for others and could have had a goal. His decision making frustrated me a few times, but for me the not-so-good paled into insignificance against the good. He could have been better, but overall I think a rating of 7.5 +/- is fair. | | | |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 14:52 - Mar 6 with 304 views | gosblue |
Clarke for once did well defensively (it's not usually his strongest suit). I struggle to get excited when he's going forward but then he surprises us all with a bit of genius. I just wish he'd lift his head up a bit more. He's got talent in abundance and is a welcome starter or finisher for me. It was a great result against a well coached team and everyone did their bit, including Clarke. Bring on Leicester. It'd about time we gave them a real sorting COYB. | | | |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 16:40 - Mar 6 with 278 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 14:19 - Mar 6 by SuffolkPunchFC |
I didn't respond further because you edited your original post, and completely removed the reference to the number of passes he made being one of the reasons he's not performed well. As I'd responded to that point, and then you removed the comment (and therefore relevance), I sort of lost the will to live (well reply).
I'll address it now though.
- I don't work for FotMob, so can't say how their people rate players
- you focused on the lower performing attributes; others were better
- the player rating was not high only on Fotmob; Sofascore and Whoscored also rated him highly
- all agreed that he was towards the top quartile of performers
As I have mentioned previously, fans with a vested interest are notoriously partisan and biased in their ratings of their favourite or not so-favourite players (and who falls into each category will change from time to time), so fan driven rating will always have an element of conscious or unconscious bias. I therefore put more value in independent ratings. The fact that the first 3 I checked were in general agreement that Clark had a reasonable good game (not MOTM ofc) makes me more inclined in that direction, counter to the OP who implied he was the worse performer.
How did I rate Clarke? I thought he did a lot of good things, created chances, drew players to him opening up space for others and could have had a goal. His decision making frustrated me a few times, but for me the not-so-good paled into insignificance against the good. He could have been better, but overall I think a rating of 7.5 +/- is fair. |
I didnt say anything about number of passes. I edited the post as I made a spelling error which I usually do hence im always editing posts and also i added in the video from x too. But certainly didnt mention passes. So no idea why youre mentioning that.
And yeah I discussed the lowering performing attributes as thats what I was judging his performance on. He kept losing the ball ( dribble stats agree ) he didnt really get the ball back ( stats show that too ). But I accept you Ignore those aspects of his game and look at how many times he touched the ball and how many passes he made backwards and sideways ( which it kinda has to be as he didn't make a lot of final third passes )
But yeah im intrigued to know how these stat sites work on their overall rating as you've shown that across them he appears to be a top rated player in that game yet he has alot of low scoring attributes so yeah id be interested to know. [Post edited 6 Mar 16:41]
| |
| |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 17:07 - Mar 6 with 267 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 16:40 - Mar 6 by FrimleyBlue |
I didnt say anything about number of passes. I edited the post as I made a spelling error which I usually do hence im always editing posts and also i added in the video from x too. But certainly didnt mention passes. So no idea why youre mentioning that.
And yeah I discussed the lowering performing attributes as thats what I was judging his performance on. He kept losing the ball ( dribble stats agree ) he didnt really get the ball back ( stats show that too ). But I accept you Ignore those aspects of his game and look at how many times he touched the ball and how many passes he made backwards and sideways ( which it kinda has to be as he didn't make a lot of final third passes )
But yeah im intrigued to know how these stat sites work on their overall rating as you've shown that across them he appears to be a top rated player in that game yet he has alot of low scoring attributes so yeah id be interested to know. [Post edited 6 Mar 16:41]
|
I really don't understand how the number of passes came about then. I distinctly saw the mention of 'only 66 passes', and that is why I responded in the way I did. Can't be certain where it was now, but all I remember is that it is what initiated my reply to your post. Not really important now though.
You're completely wrong that I ignore the poor stats - I always take into account the full picture. I was adding balance to you only focussing on the poor stats. Neither did I say anywhere in the initial discussion that I thought Clarke was without fault that night - I just pointed out that the independent observers rated him positively, somewhat at odds with those suggesting that he was terrible, and calling him out as the poor cog in an otherwise good team performance. If you look back, my actual (balanced) assessment was :
"Did everything Jack tried come off tonight? No, it wasn’t his most productive. Was his the poorest performance (the OP’s title). Absolutely not!!!" | | | |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 21:22 - Mar 6 with 228 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 17:07 - Mar 6 by SuffolkPunchFC |
I really don't understand how the number of passes came about then. I distinctly saw the mention of 'only 66 passes', and that is why I responded in the way I did. Can't be certain where it was now, but all I remember is that it is what initiated my reply to your post. Not really important now though.
You're completely wrong that I ignore the poor stats - I always take into account the full picture. I was adding balance to you only focussing on the poor stats. Neither did I say anywhere in the initial discussion that I thought Clarke was without fault that night - I just pointed out that the independent observers rated him positively, somewhat at odds with those suggesting that he was terrible, and calling him out as the poor cog in an otherwise good team performance. If you look back, my actual (balanced) assessment was :
"Did everything Jack tried come off tonight? No, it wasn’t his most productive. Was his the poorest performance (the OP’s title). Absolutely not!!!" |
I dunno. He made 42 passes.
The 66 mention was yourself and the number of touches he had. | |
| |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 21:48 - Mar 6 with 214 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 21:22 - Mar 6 by FrimleyBlue |
I dunno. He made 42 passes.
The 66 mention was yourself and the number of touches he had. |
Touches not passes is what I was referring to in the original post - I mistyped passes in the earlier reply today.
As I said, I was originally replying to a post that said he had a poor 66 touches. I thought it was you (hence why I replied to your post), but I don’t see the reference now, so whoever posted it, edited it out. | | | |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 23:44 - Mar 6 with 187 views | Chris_ITFC |
JC x 47.
 |  |
| |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 09:01 - Mar 7 with 127 views | farkenhell |
| Clarke aside, that’s a great team performance! on 09:56 - Mar 6 by Churchman |
You forgot Egeli. He’s well and truly on the podium of hate.
Much if it is of course because we paid a fee for a player or they replaced somebody they liked. Muric was a classic for that. He was dead meat right from the off because a fee was paid and he replaced Hladky, a fan favourite despite being a bang average keeper at best. Tbf good with his feet.
The players you mention - all cost money so straight on to the ‘list’, even though the fees had nothing to do with them.
Back to Clarke I keep reading he lost the ball a lot. Yes, he lost it more than the Hull players. Why? Because they never had the ball in the first place! In relation to his involvement in the game he kept possession well. Did he try things and lose the ball sometimes? Yes - and so did Nunez. The latter actually loses the ball a fair amount but escapes the vitriol and rightly so. He is forever trying things and keeping the tempo going. Clarke in a different way does the same.
Is JC a better player than Philogene? Depends how you view it. He gets involved more and is more flexible in where he can play, but JP has marginally pure ability in my view. They are both terrific players and I just enjoy seeing them play - especially compared to the dross served up during the Evans black hole years.
JC played well the other night. As you rightly point out, some people are extremely hard to please. |
I think JC & JP are very similar ability-wise, both fantastic players and we're lucky to have both. They have different skills as you say, JP better at long-range shooting, JC I think is better at getting past an opponent.
I criticised JC the other night for his decision-making, which I thought was not up to his usual standard. I don't like to criticise him for taking on a defender because he's probably the best in the team for doing that, but there comes a point where he has to decide whether to take on another man, try a shot or pass, and that's where imo he got it wrong on too many occasions against Hull. For example, on more than one occasion, he came inside, had beaten one or two defenders, this had drawn in two or three opponents to him and left space for Davis to make a superb overlapping run, JC had an opportunity to play him in behind the Hull defence, but he chose to take on an extra defender, was crowded out and lost the ball. Compare that to Mehmeti against Swansea, who on more than one occasion came inside and played an earlier ball through to Davis, which immediately turned the defence around.
Anyways, I've waffled on enough. Hopefully JC will give us another mom performance today and force my words firmly back up my derrière. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
