Player ratings vs Fleetwood...

Ricey

Active member
2018-19 shirt sponsor for Jamie Hanson
#1
I wasn’t able to go today would someone like to start give some ratings?

Listened on RadOx but difficult to get a real idea...

Cheers!!
 

ZeroTheHero

Active member
#3
Shearer - 4. Didn't have that much to do, but fumbled the ball a couple of times and was slow off his line when he gave away the penalty (which I thought was actually a dive - but the game had gone by then).

Garbutt - 2. I think he might as well not have been there much of the time. Can't defend, didn't attack. May not be match ready, but we can't have him in the team to get fit!

Nelson - 5. Sort of unspectacularly steady. Not helped by the full backs on either side being so feeble and a lack of muscle in front of him.

Dickie -5. He came in for a bit of stick, but as with Nelson, he was trying to do the job of two men at times.

McMahon - 3. Also easy for the opposition to get past (see Garbutt). However, he did get forward a couple of times, and used his experience to cover for his lack of pace a couple of times.

Mackie -2. Sorry, but he is terrible. Either past it or unfit - either way the game passed him by and he missed our best chance of the game. Only not a 1 because he did put effort in - but that's really the minimum we should expect!

Brannagan - 5. Fairly anonymous (yes, another one!), but some neat passes when the ball wasn't being booted over his head. Not efective in the tackle though.

Ruffels - 3. Again, put a shift in. But out of his depth really, and not the defensive midfielder we need (although thankfully we have another one, as soon as he is fit).

Hall - 3. He's a better player than he showed today - but he didn't go past a man once, and (like others) had no snap or sparkle to him. Poor.

Holmes - 8. A diamond in a manure heap. The only player who showed anything like the required standard. Resorted to trying to make and score goals for himself as it became quickly obvious that nobody else was capable.

Smith - 6. Started Ok, but faded. With all the 'wide players' and 'number 10s' in the side, supply to him was awful.

KR - 3. What on earth has he been doing on the training pitch?

Subs - none of them made enough contribution to rate.
 
Last edited:

McXal

Junior Member
#5
Still too frustrated to really digest it. But yeah, everyone except Holmes (plus maybe Smith and Nelson) were universally poor.

Garbutt is a poster-child for our broken football system. 25 years old - but looks as lost as a little first year pro. I’ve no doubt he has ability and will improve. But wow. He was DIRE today. Lots of stick flying around for Mackie, Ruffels, Dickie, Shearer, McMahon and more (mostly justified) but that was a miserable performance from LG
 
#6
Shearer - 4. Didn't have that much to do, but fumbled the ball a couple of times and was slow off his line when he gave away the penalty (which I thought was actually a dive - but the game had gone by then.

Garbutt - 2. I think he might as well not have been there much of the time. Can't defend, didn't attack. May not be match ready, but we can't have him in the team to get fit!

Nelson - 5. Sort of unspectacularly steady. Not helped by the full backs on either side being so feeble of a lack of muscle in front of him.

Dickie -5. He came in for a bit of stick, but as with Nelson, he was trying to do the job of two men at times.

McMahon - 3. Also easy for the opposition to get past (see Garbutt). However, he did get forward a couple of times, and used his experience to cover for his lack of pace a couple of times.

Mackie -2. Sorry, but he is terrible. Either past it or unfit - either way the game passed him by and he missed our best chance of the game. Only not a 1 because he did put effort in - but that's really the minimum we should expect!

Brannagan - 5. Fairly anonymous (yes, another one!), but some neat passes when the ball wasn't being booted over his head. Not efective in the tackle though.

Ruffels - 3. Again, put a shift in. But out of his depth really, and not the defensive midfielder we need (although thankfully we have another one, as soon as he is fit.

Hall - 3. He's a better player than he showed today - but he didn't go past a man once, and (like others) had no snap or sparkle to him. Poor.

Holmes - 8. A diamond in a manure heap. The only player who showed anything like the required standard. Resorted to trying to make and score goals for himself as it became quickly obvious that nobody else was capable.

Smith - 6. Started Ok, but faded. With all the 'wide players' and 'number 10s' in the side, supply to him was awful.

KR - 3. What on earth has he been doing on the training pitch?

Subs - none of them made enough contribution to rate.
Sadly can’t really argue with any of that. Thought Karl was completely outsmarted by Barton tactically. Yes we’ll get better but surely with the budget he talks about we should be hitting the ground running rather than waiting for players to get match time?
 
#7
Still too frustrated to really digest it. But yeah, everyone except Holmes (plus maybe Smith and Nelson) were universally poor.

Garbutt is a poster-child for our broken football system. 25 years old - but looks as lost as a little first year pro. I’ve no doubt he has ability and will improve. But wow. He was DIRE today. Lots of stick flying around for Mackie, Ruffels, Dickie, Shearer, McMahon and more (mostly justified) but that was a miserable performance from LG
Had no idea Garbutt was 25! Thought he was much younger, how the heck is he still on Everton’s books!
 
#8
Shearer - 4. Didn't have that much to do, but fumbled the ball a couple of times and was slow off his line when he gave away the penalty (which I thought was actually a dive - but the game had gone by then.

Garbutt - 2. I think he might as well not have been there much of the time. Can't defend, didn't attack. May not be match ready, but we can't have him in the team to get fit!

Nelson - 5. Sort of unspectacularly steady. Not helped by the full backs on either side being so feeble of a lack of muscle in front of him.

Dickie -5. He came in for a bit of stick, but as with Nelson, he was trying to do the job of two men at times.

McMahon - 3. Also easy for the opposition to get past (see Garbutt). However, he did get forward a couple of times, and used his experience to cover for his lack of pace a couple of times.

Mackie -2. Sorry, but he is terrible. Either past it or unfit - either way the game passed him by and he missed our best chance of the game. Only not a 1 because he did put effort in - but that's really the minimum we should expect!

Brannagan - 5. Fairly anonymous (yes, another one!), but some neat passes when the ball wasn't being booted over his head. Not efective in the tackle though.

Ruffels - 3. Again, put a shift in. But out of his depth really, and not the defensive midfielder we need (although thankfully we have another one, as soon as he is fit.

Hall - 3. He's a better player than he showed today - but he didn't go past a man once, and (like others) had no snap or sparkle to him. Poor.

Holmes - 8. A diamond in a manure heap. The only player who showed anything like the required standard. Resorted to trying to make and score goals for himself as it became quickly obvious that nobody else was capable.

Smith - 6. Started Ok, but faded. With all the 'wide players' and 'number 10s' in the side, supply to him was awful.

KR - 3. What on earth has he been doing on the training pitch?

Subs - none of them made enough contribution to rate.
Agree with this Smith had no service when Holmes went outwide and was working with long balls.Shearer needs to go in my opinion, spills everything and so slow.Hopefukky Stevens gets the nod over next 2 months.
 

Jack Midson

Active member
#9
Luke Garbutt? More like Luke Garbage. He was shite.

But I'm sure he will improve. He has a good pedigree but he hasn't played consistent first team football properly for well over a season so I'm sure he'll need to get back into the swing of things.

If Robinson rates him then I trust he will come good.
 
#10
6 for Smith is generous, as is 2 for Garbutt

Holmes the only bright note, didn't come off for him today but he had no help, think he might have to do a Maguire and carry us for periods this season
 
#11
Luke Garbutt? More like Luke Garbage. He was shite.

But I'm sure he will improve. He has a good pedigree but he hasn't played consistent first team football properly for well over a season so I'm sure he'll need to get back into the swing of things.

If Robinson rates him then I trust he will come good.
Garbutt is absolute dog turd. What a f*****g nightmare set of signings we've made.
 
#12
Rufflels actually one of our better players. Always kept competing, far better than the headless chicken, positionally suspect Branagan.

I would drop both full backs and move Ruffs back. McMahon is already a liability.

Can’t work out who was worse Hall or Mackie. Mackie looks shot.

Shearer’s error calamitous.

Robbo will get things right though.
 
#14
Seriously bad start - our worst (ever?). I have always said KR is a good man but our Chairman must be looking at him & thinking "er?" Garbutt is poor & looks leggy & not interested, Mackie is -er - past it, we have lost Carruthers until Christmas, Smith is too lightweight -- in fact a complete "fu****p" of a close season. Another loss next Saturday & ...well, takes a lot of making up. Why on earth did we start with Ruffels in midfield after his shocker last week? Come on KR earn your salary & deliver a team that can perform!!
 

bazzer9461

Well-known member
#15
Still too frustrated to really digest it. But yeah, everyone except Holmes (plus maybe Smith and Nelson) were universally poor.

Garbutt is a poster-child for our broken football system. 25 years old - but looks as lost as a little first year pro. I’ve no doubt he has ability and will improve. But wow. He was DIRE today. Lots of stick flying around for Mackie, Ruffels, Dickie, Shearer, McMahon and more (mostly justified) but that was a miserable performance from LG
And all the positive comments about him when he first came here pre season.
 
#16
I think our problems are midfield, fitness, and cohesion. The good news is that they these should all naturally improve. Garbutt is on 20k a week and plays for Everton, he must be better than that. We know Hall is. It will be OK
 
#17
I think our problems are midfield, fitness, and cohesion. The good news is that they these should all naturally improve. Garbutt is on 20k a week and plays for Everton, he must be better than that. We know Hall is. It will be OK
Full backs are the biggest issue. Neither goes past half way line meaning every attack is identical and not stretching the opposition. It's simple if the fullback's overlap you pull in midfielders and create gaps for others to run into. Fleetwood had attacking full backs and stretched us on most attacks.
 
#20
The fullbacks main role is to defend, forget what they do going forwards for now because they aren’t doing the fundamental part of their role.

How many crosses into the box did either of them stop?

I can’t remember a single one.

If you aren’t doing that, you aren’t worthy of a place in the side regardless of how well you can attack.

I feel sorry for whoever plays upfront at the moment as they are largely feeding off scraps and when they do manage to make something of the balls forward they are often left to fend off three defenders until they inevitably lose the ball.

The poor performances of Mackie and Hall today didn’t really give Smith much of a chance to make an impact on the game.

Of course Eastwood’s injury wasn’t ideal, but did this really have an impact on the result?

Not for me. The first goal was an easy finish that not many keepers would have saved, the penalty whilst reckless was at a stage where the game was gone.

I can’t see what kind of leaders and scrappers we have in the side now, think back to the team from around 96/97 ish and the names who were part of that:

Mike Ford
Martin Gray
Stuart Massey
Matt Elliott
Paul Moody
Darren Purse

Players who could take the team by the scruff of the neck and pull them through poor performances through work rate and endeavour.

Who do we have in that mould now?

I can’t think of a single one.
 
Top Bottom