Player of the Season

[West Stand Man]

Do you think this season was a success or something? Those that started every game are seen by many as most culpable for this generally pathetic season.

and do point out to me where in my post there is any reference to the club's success level? POTS is about the peron you (we) think did best. That could be in a poor team or a brilliant one.

My point is that it is hard to see how any player who harly started a game is likely to have been better overall than one who did.

Simples?

[P!ssed Off]

Do you think this season was a success or something? Those that started every game are seen by many as most culpable for this generally pathetic season.

and do point out to me where in my post there is any reference to the club's success level? POTS is about the peron you (we) think did best. That could be in a poor team or a brilliant one.

My point is that it is hard to see how any player who harly started a game is likely to have been better overall than one who did.

Simples?

If the team does very well then it is likely that those that played the most contributed the most to the team's success. If the team does badly, i.e. this season, then
it is likely that those that played the most contributed most to the team's failure.

Are you suggesting Leigertwood in his 29 league starts has positively contributed more than any of McCarthy, ALF or HRK. I would disagree.
I think it's done more on an average rating rather than adding up each match rating.

As for McAnuff: 'The Captain goes down with the ship'.

[RoyalBlue]

What a bizarre situation, but perhaps not an unpredictable one.

I thought McAnuff would be quite an easy winner this year but I guess the people that vote aren't the people that generally appreciate what goes on on the pitch.

I read further up the thread that the club extended the voting. If that's the case then I wonder if the number of votes is exceptionally low and so a bit of a freakish short list/winner is the result.

And that latter bit is what has left me wondering whether it was turned into a Mugabe type ballot - we will keep voting until we get the right result and have outvoted all of those trouble makers who tried to get the award given to Brynjar!

[Ian Royal]

Agreed, voting someone who's made about 11 starts in a 40+ game season as PotS shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what you're voting for. As does voting for someone just because they've had a couple of very good performances recently and not done a great deal else.

ALF I can at least understand, as a match winner, top goalscorer and he's made plenty of appearances, if not that many starts. McCarthy is a shoe in for young player of the season. HRK for most improved player of the season. But player of the season? Do me a favour.

Firstly if you're including the cups in POTS (you mention a 40+ game season) then for ALF, HRK and McCarthy it's 14, 15 and 12 starts respectively.

Oh well, those extra 4 games max make all the difference.

[P!ssed Off]

Agreed, voting someone who's made about 11 starts in a 40+ game season as PotS shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what you're voting for. As does voting for someone just because they've had a couple of very good performances recently and not done a great deal else.

ALF I can at least understand, as a match winner, top goalscorer and he's made plenty of appearances, if not that many starts. McCarthy is a shoe in for young player of the season. HRK for most improved player of the season. But player of the season? Do me a favour.

Firstly if you're including the cups in POTS (you mention a 40+ game season) then for ALF, HRK and McCarthy it's 14, 15 and 12 starts respectively.

Oh well, those extra 4 games max make all the difference.

It just seemed ironic that someone accusing others of "a fundamental lack of understanding of what you're voting for", seemed unsure as to what they were voting for; whether POTS is just for the League or League+Cups.

Sorry if my highlighting of this offended you.

[Ian Royal]

I said about. In the context of a 40+ game season, 11 is about 15, I just said 11 as that's what someone else had mentioned and I couldn't be arsed to look it up exactly.

Personally, I think that any contender for PotS really ought to have started in at least half the games. ALF gets through because he's our top scorer, has won us a lot of points and has actually featured in most of the matches, even if just from the bench for most.

It's Player Of The Season, not Player Who's Just Had A Couple Of Very Good Games Recently.

[St. Brynjar]

It's Player Of The Season, not Player Who's Just Had A Couple Of Very Good Games Recently.

Sums it up nicely. McCleary's heroics against Stoke should bear just as much weight as McCarthy's against Liverpool.

[Ian Royal]

It's Player Of The Season, not Player Who's Just Had A Couple Of Very Good Games Recently.

Sums it up nicely. McCleary's heroics against Stoke should bear just as much weight as McCarthy's against Liverpool.

That was mainly directed at HRK. McCarthy's been excellent whenever he's played and would have been a shoe in (even for me) if he hadn't got injured. He just hasn't featured enough in my book. Certainly not to keep McAnuff out of the running, who's the only sane winner IMO.

But then ours is a fanbase that includes people who think Jobi is the worst player we've had for a decade and clearly have no need to fear the ridicule they deserve when they say it.

[St. Brynjar]

It's Player Of The Season, not Player Who's Just Had A Couple Of Very Good Games Recently.

Sums it up nicely. McCleary's heroics against Stoke should bear just as much weight as McCarthy's against Liverpool.

That was mainly directed at HRK. McCarthy's been excellent whenever he's played and would have been a shoe in (even for me) if he hadn't got injured. He just hasn't featured enough in my book. Certainly not to keep McAnuff out of the running, who's the only sane winner IMO.

But then ours is a fanbase that includes people who think Jobi is the worst player we've had for a decade and clearly have no need to fear the ridicule they deserve when they say it.

I was going to say HRK vs Fulham but didn't think it justified the 'heroics' bit and would have looked like a nob.

[P!ssed Off]

I said about. In the context of a 40+ game season, 11 is about 15, I just said 11 as that's what someone else had mentioned and I couldn't be arsed to look it up exactly.

Personally, I think that any contender for PotS really ought to have started in at least half the games. ALF gets through because he's our top scorer, has won us a lot of points and has actually featured in most of the matches, even if just from the bench for most.

It's Player Of The Season, not Player Who's Just Had A Couple Of Very Good Games Recently.

Agree in theory, but this season has been unusual in terms of player selection. Also, you cannot just ignore substitute appearances.

For example Pog has made 24 league starts this season, appearing in 1956 mins (including 3 sub appearances, not including injury times).
ALF has made only 11 league starts this season, appearing in 1418 mins (including 21 sub appearance, not including injury times).

Pog has played (over the 36 game league season so far) 54.33 minutes per game.
ALF has played (over the 36 game league season so far) 39.39 minutes per game.
This is a relatively small difference (15 mins per game, 1/6 of a match). It seems reasonable to me that a player playing 39.39 minutes per game could make a bigger contribution over the season than someone playing 54.33 minutes per game.
Whilst supposedly a super-sub, ALF has actually played the full 90 minutes more times this season than Pogrebnyak (10:7)

Players that have started at least half the 36 games so far:
Gunter, 18 starts (0 sub apps), minutes of league football = 1610, minutes per game = 44.72
Pearce, 18 starts (1 sub apps), minutes of league football = 1645, minutes per game = 45.69
Karacan, 19 starts (0 sub apps), minutes of league football = 1427, minutes per game = 39.64
Federici, 21 starts (0 sub apps), minutes of league football = 1890, minutes per game = 52.50
Pogrebnyak, 24 starts (3 sub apps), minutes of league football = 1956, minutes per game = 54.33
Mariappa, 28 starts (0 sub apps), minutes of league football = 2520, minutes per game = 70
Leigertwood, 29 starts (1 sub apps), minutes of league football = 2646, minutes per game = 73.5
McAnuff, 36 starts (0 sub apps), minutes of league football = 3115, minutes per game = 86.53

Clearly if POTS was done in mind of minutes per game then the top 3 would without a doubt be McAnuff, Leigertwood and Mariappa. But that would make the vote completely pointless, the club might just as well let the fans vote on who of Mariappa or Leigertwood comes 2nd, and hand 1st place straight to McAnuff.

Under the rule that only those who have started at least half the games are eligible, Karacan would be eligible and ALF would not, despite Karacan having only played for 9 minutes more throughout the season. Seems a tad harsh.

Assuming that Guthrie and Gunter will start the next two games (seems very likely), the 'you must have started at least half the games' rule would leave a shortlist for player of the season of:
Guthrie (likely 19 starts) (average first 3/4 of the season, hated by many fans for refusing to travel, played well for the last month of the season)
Gunter (likely 20 starts) (pretty poor for the first half of the season, dropped for 3 months, played decently for the last month of the season)
Karacan (likely 21 starts) (did not play very well for the first 3/4 of the season, played well last few weeks, currently played only 9 minutes more than ineligble ALF)
Federici (likely 21 starts) (so good he's now been replaced by McCarthy and no one seems to mind)
Pogrebnyak (likely 26 starts) (on a reported £60,000 per week and scored 5 goals so far this season as first choice striker, nice one)
Leigertwood (likely 29 starts) (played rubbish for most of the season, finally substituted off to rapturous applause when the manager saw sense, now on the scrap heap)
Mariappa (likely 30 starts) (been decent most of the season, but a constant in the Premier League's joint worst defence (Goals Against))
McAnuff (likely 38 starts) (been decent most of the season, but Captain of a mentally weak, relegated side, good return for assists but poor return for goals)

Can't honestly say I'm massively surprised that a member of the above list will not win player of the season. Also not that surprised that the POTS shortlist is our two top goalscorers in the league, plus a player who is potentially one of Reading's greatest ever youth products, likely to become only the second Reading player to play for England in modern times).
All stats refer to league only, and do not include injury time

[SCIAG]

Assuming that Guthrie and Gunter will start the next two games (seems very likely), the 'you must have started at least half the games' rule would leave a shortlist for player of the season of:
Guthrie (likely 19 starts) (average first 3/4 of the season, hated by many fans for refusing to travel, played well for the last month of the season)
Gunter (likely 20 starts) (pretty poor for the first half of the season, dropped for 3 months, played decently for the last month of the season)
Karacan (likely 21 starts) (did not play very well for the first 3/4 of the season, played well last few weeks, currently played only 9 minutes more than ineligble ALF)
Federici (likely 21 starts) (so good he's now been replaced by McCarthy and no one seems to mind)
Pogrebnyak (likely 26 starts) (on a reported £60,000 per week and scored 5 goals so far this season as first choice striker, nice one)
Leigertwood (likely 29 starts) (played rubbish for most of the season, finally substituted off to rapturous applause when the manager saw sense, now on the scrap heap)
Mariappa (likely 30 starts) (been decent most of the season, but a constant in the Premier League's joint worst defence (Goals Against))
McAnuff (likely 38 starts) (been decent most of the season, but Captain of a mentally weak, relegated side, good return for assists but poor return for goals)

I am really trying to formulate a polite response.

1) If you think Leigertwood was "rubbish for most of the season"... you're wrong. Particularly if Gunter has only been "pretty poor".
2) If you are pinning blame on Mariappa for our defensive woes, you should have been examining who was at fault for the goals we were leaking early in the season, and our match strategies in those games, and the lack of defensive cover provided by Tabb, Karacan and HRK in particular earlier in the season.
3) We weren't relegated because we were "mentally weak".

[P!ssed Off]

Assuming that Guthrie and Gunter will start the next two games (seems very likely), the 'you must have started at least half the games' rule would leave a shortlist for player of the season of:
Guthrie (likely 19 starts) (average first 3/4 of the season, hated by many fans for refusing to travel, played well for the last month of the season)
Gunter (likely 20 starts) (pretty poor for the first half of the season, dropped for 3 months, played decently for the last month of the season)
Karacan (likely 21 starts) (did not play very well for the first 3/4 of the season, played well last few weeks, currently played only 9 minutes more than ineligble ALF)
Federici (likely 21 starts) (so good he's now been replaced by McCarthy and no one seems to mind)
Pogrebnyak (likely 26 starts) (on a reported £60,000 per week and scored 5 goals so far this season as first choice striker, nice one)
Leigertwood (likely 29 starts) (played rubbish for most of the season, finally substituted off to rapturous applause when the manager saw sense, now on the scrap heap)
Mariappa (likely 30 starts) (been decent most of the season, but a constant in the Premier League's joint worst defence (Goals Against))
McAnuff (likely 38 starts) (been decent most of the season, but Captain of a mentally weak, relegated side, good return for assists but poor return for goals)

I am really trying to formulate a polite response.

1) If you think Leigertwood was "rubbish for most of the season"... you're wrong. Particularly if Gunter has only been "pretty poor".
2) If you are pinning blame on Mariappa for our defensive woes, you should have been examining who was at fault for the goals we were leaking early in the season, and our match strategies in those games, and the lack of defensive cover provided by Tabb, Karacan and HRK in particular earlier in the season.
3) We weren't relegated because we were "mentally weak".

1. Ok, I accept Gunter was rubbish for most of the season. But I believe a central midfielder that can't pass 5 metres (at least this season) is indeed the dictionary definition of a rubbish central midfielder.
2. Didn't pin the blame on Mariappa. "been decent", but he has to take at least a portion of the blame for a generally sh!t defence.
3. I did not say this. We were mentally weak at many points, we were also relegated, two things that generally are slightly more the responsibility of the captain than the average team member, whether the team is mentally strong and promoted (last year) or mentally weak and relegated (this year)

[melonhead]

Do you think this season was a success or something? Those that started every game are seen by many as most culpable for this generally pathetic season.

and do point out to me where in my post there is any reference to the club's success level? POTS is about the peron you (we) think did best. That could be in a poor team or a brilliant one.

My point is that it is hard to see how any player who harly started a game is likely to have been better overall than one who did.

Simples?

If the team does very well then it is likely that those that played the most contributed the most to the team's success. If the team does badly, i.e. this season, then
it is likely that those that played the most contributed most to the team's failure.

Are you suggesting Leigertwood in his 29 league starts has positively contributed more than any of McCarthy, ALF or HRK. I would disagree.
I think it's done more on an average rating rather than adding up each match rating.

As for McAnuff: 'The Captain goes down with the ship'.

so by your logic you give the award, in bad seasons, to those you imagine might have played quite well if theyd played, but didnt play,
rather than to someone who actually played giving you performances you can judge outside of your imagination?


bonkers

[melonhead]

Clearly if POTS was done in mind of minutes per game then the top 3 would without a doubt be McAnuff, Leigertwood and Mariappa. But that would make the vote completely pointless, the club might just as well let the fans vote on who of Mariappa or Leigertwood comes 2nd, and hand 1st place straight to McAnuff.

no one is saying you award it purely on minutes/games played.
it simply seems reasonable that the player of the season should have played in most of the games.

clearly not to some, but then some people are mental.
hey ho

[Ian Royal]

If the team does very well then it is likely that those that played the most contributed the most to the team's success. If the team does badly, i.e. this season, then
it is likely that those that played the most contributed most to the team's failure.

I think you'll find, in general, that the ones that played the most, will be the ones that performed the best. Because if they hadn't they'd have been dropped. THe ones who didn't play much, weren't good enough or didn't perform well enough to retain their places (or had long term injuries).

So Karacan, Pearce, Morrison, Robson-Kanu, McCleary, Harte, Shorey, Hunt & Federici all failed to perform well enough consistently enough to get the number of games to qualify them for being a contender.

Leigertwood, ALF, Guthrie and McCarthy are slightly different cases. ALF tactically, McCarthy injury, Guthrie disciplinary, and Legs tactically. Clearly no one is saying just playing lots of games makes you a contender. It is quite obviously about two factors a) playing enough to have been a big feature in the season, and b) performing well in those games.

[RoyalinBracknell]

[quote="melonhead
so by your logic you give the award, in bad seasons, to those you imagine might have played quite well if theyd played, but didnt play,
rather than to someone who actually played giving you performances you can judge outside of your imagination?


bonkers[/quote]

It's not really down to imagination though is it? Le Fondre and Robson-Kanu are our top two league scorers. That suggests they've made a positive contribution even if they haven't started all that often. Robson-Kanu also has 5 assists in all competitions. If your criteria was contribution per playing minute then the stats for those 2 probably wouldn't look too bad.

[melonhead]

i can see ALF, just

i cant see kanu, as much as a like him, and think he has looked even better under adkins.

[P!ssed Off]

If the team does very well then it is likely that those that played the most contributed the most to the team's success. If the team does badly, i.e. this season, then
it is likely that those that played the most contributed most to the team's failure.

I think you'll find, in general, that the ones that played the most, will be the ones that performed the best. Because if they hadn't they'd have been dropped. THe ones who didn't play much, weren't good enough or didn't perform well enough to retain their places (or had long term injuries).

So Karacan, Pearce, Morrison, Robson-Kanu, McCleary, Harte, Shorey, Hunt & Federici all failed to perform well enough consistently enough to get the number of games to qualify them for being a contender.

Leigertwood, ALF, Guthrie and McCarthy are slightly different cases. ALF tactically, McCarthy injury, Guthrie disciplinary, and Legs tactically. Clearly no one is saying just playing lots of games makes you a contender. It is quite obviously about two factors a) playing enough to have been a big feature in the season, and b) performing well in those games.

1. "in general" is key to your first paragraph. I think it's fair to say that numerous players, as well as a large proportion of the fans, as evidenced by this vote, believe that this season it was not the case that team selection was heavily linked to player performances.

2. By your 'must have started at least half the games rule', Karacan and Federici do in fact qualify to be contenders: "any contender for PotS really ought to have started in at least half the games". If you're going to create rules for PoTS at least be consistent about it.

[Ian Royal]

People who think player performance wasn't mostly linked to team selection are braindead morons who just bang on endlessly about 'favourites' because they don't have a bloody clue.

Neither were really regulars. Neither played well enough to secure their place. Neither deserve to be in the running for PotS.

They're more guidelines than actual rules. You really do seem to struggle with understanding basic concepts.

[P!ssed Off]

People who think player performance wasn't mostly linked to team selection are braindead morons who just bang on endlessly about 'favourites' because they don't have a bloody clue.

Neither were really regulars. Neither played well enough to secure their place. Neither deserve to be in the running for PotS.

They're more guidelines than actual rules. You really do seem to struggle with understanding basic concepts.

I guess you're just too intelligent for the rest of us to debate with. I assume in real life you don't call everyone you disagree with a "braindead moron that doesn't have a bloody clue"?

Do you realise what a large proportion of the Reading fans you're slagging off? Oh wait, you probably don't because your internet stream didn't pick up the crowd's reaction to Leigertwood being subbed off against VIlla.
If you want to judge Reading fans properly, go to a oxf*rd game.