dolman_bcfc Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Phillips 7Orr 7Sankofa 8Partridge 6Woodman 4Bridges (72 min) 4Cotterill 5Murray (55 min) 7Skuse 6Brown 6Wiltshire 4Stewart 6Madjo (58 min) 5Brooker UN MARKED!I wonder if they send a person to every ground to rate the players. I for one can't beleive the man of the match Brown was rated only a 6. Do you agree with these ratings?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 brown was easily an 8!He was all over the shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Phillips 7Orr 7Sankofa 8Partridge 6Woodman 4Bridges (72 min) 4Cotterill 5Murray (55 min) 7Skuse 6Brown 6Wiltshire 4Stewart 6Madjo (58 min) 5Brooker UN MARKED!I wonder if they send a person to every ground to rate the players. I for one can't beleive the man of the match Brown was rated only a 6. Do you agree with these ratings??Brooker was my man of the match closely followed by Brown. Poor ratings- they just make them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpitman Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Brooker was my man of the match closely followed by Brown. Poor ratings- they just make them up.Brooker?, I (and others around me) thought he struggled to make an impression yesterday!!.My MOM was definatley Dave Partridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Brooker?, I (and others around me) thought he struggled to make an impression yesterday!!.My MOM was definatley Dave PartridgeNo he was great. Links the play up well and never loses it. Rarely has a bad game. Looked most threatning upfront too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barneyredballs Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 He was my man of the match. Good in air, good on floor and can play the ball well to. Think him, heywood and new lad would make a cracking back 3, if we wanted 3-5-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 no not reallybrooker unmarkedbrown only a 6 when he got man of the match deservedlyphillips 7 when he had nothing to dobit of a joke i reckon! Phillips had nothing to do and he still manged to have a poor game. 7! 4 at the most is 5 constitutes an average game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BCFC_JOHNERZ_88 Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 i don't think woodman was 4 he played alot better than other matches keeping the ball on the deck abit more rather than the tradmark matty hill smash upthe field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC Wes Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 no not reallybrooker unmarkedbrown only a 6 when he got man of the match deservedlyphillips 7 when he had nothing to dobit of a joke i reckon! I thought Phillips played very well, he made two good saves from close range.Brooker was easily the best player, Scott Brown was good yesterday but i don't really rate him , he is like Doherty but cant pass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 I thought Phillips played very well, he made two good saves from close range.Brooker was easily the best player, Scott Brown was good yesterday but i don't really rate him , he is like Doherty but cant passHe had two shots put at him. For the goal he should have come out and caught the ball. Also his kicking and general distrubtion was poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC Wes Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 He had two shots put at him. For the goal he should have come out and caught the ball. Also his kicking and general distrubtion was poor.They were put at him because he positioned himself well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 They were put at him because he positioned himself wellHe is expected to save shots put straight at him. Average saves. His general all round play was poor yesterday when compared to Hartlepool's keeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Orr better than Woodman?Rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Orr better than Woodman?Rubbish.Both average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dolman_bcfc Posted October 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Orr better than Woodman?Rubbish.Not rubbish. True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Orr couldn't string a pass together, and he was at fault for their goal, aswell as bringing us under pressure for no apparent reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Orr couldn't string a pass together, and he was at fault for their goal, aswell as bringing us under pressure for no apparent reason.Various players have been blamed for the goal. Phillips could have come for the cross/es, Sankofa should have cleared it and where was Orr?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Woodman was one of few that I think was back - exactly my point.Woodman was miles better than normal, he did not deserve a 4 by any means. Maybe a 7 for him and a 6 for Orr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Woodman was one of few that I think was back - exactly my point.Woodman was miles better than normal, he did not deserve a 4 by any means. Maybe a 7 for him and a 6 for Orr.They were both OK. Didn't do anything great but nothing awful either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Exactly, Woodman was not deserving of a 4! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Exactly, Woodman was not deserving of a 4!True story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolface Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 don't think they even bother to have a look at game just sit in office in london and make it up, if it was the Sun our man donamic might have given better ratings but then what do you expexct from a comic like the News of the World really :razz: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dolman_bcfc Posted October 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Exactly, Woodman was not deserving of a 4!yeah that was mayby a bit unfair on him. Could of perhaps got a 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.