The Numbers Game

Marks out of ten for players. Like horoscopes we know how ridiculous they are but we simply can’t resist them – and especially wondering how on earth the perpetrators can possibly justify some of their decisions.

Of course, the best fun is obtained by actually watching a game and then reading all this stuff afterwards, which enables you to spend a harmless few minutes considering whether you and the ‘expert’ reporter actually attended the same match. If you can’t manage that, the next best thing is a game televised in its entirety because edited versions (like the reporter’s verdict) can be very misleading.

One of the most exasperating forms of injustice is that there is apparently some kind of unwritten rule which stipulates that a player cannot possibly earn more than 6 out of 10 if in the match concerned he doesn’t see much of the ball. This of course tells you a great deal about the limitations of the reporter who sits in judgement on the players. First, he does not know the game. If he did he would be aware that only rarely will a player (even a midfield player) have possession, or ball contact, for more than about three minutes in the 90 – so it’s wise to take account of what he does without the ball, either in defence or attack, because whatever it is he’ll be doing it for the vast majority of the game. Secondly, it is not necessarily the player’s fault that he doesn’t see much of the ball, so he should hardly be penalised by loss of marks – especially if everything he does is done well.

So much for a bit of theory. Let’s get down to cases. Consider the Arsenal v Sheffield United game at the Emirates Stadium – a contest dominated by the home side who had well over 60% possession. As a result of this, Arsenal keeper Jens Lehmann had a relatively quiet afternoon – so naturally Antony Kastrinakis, who covered the match for the News of the World, couldn’t possibly award him more than 6 and commented “Little to do until he reacted well to stop Kabba’s late header.” How very patronising. And also inaccurate. In the first few minutes, Lehmann made a terrific save from Chris Armstrong’s free kick and throughout the match he commanded his box, handled well and distributed the ball effectively. By contrast, Sheffield United keeper Ian Bennett had an extremely busy time of it, made several excellent saves and could not be faulted for any of Arsenal’s three goals, so obviously he rated (wait for it) – a 6. Interesting, isn’t it?

And in case you’re thinking that was a one-off, let’s turn to a selection from Luke Nicoli’s pronouncements on Fulham v Chelsea. The home side’s keeper Antti Niemi (who is obviously a bit of a Lehmann) attracted the comment “Superb save from Shevchenko but never put under real pressure” and got (you’ve guessed it) a 6, while Fulham’s outstanding young full back Liam Rosenior conceded a penalty so he couldn’t possibly rise above the dreaded 6 – unlike Michael Brown whose afternoon included a potentially career threatening tackle on Ashley Cole and was rewarded with an 8. Meanwhile, on the Chelsea side, Cole plumbed the depths on a 5, Didier Drogba was only one better, but Frank Lampard was man of the match on 8 with the remark “This wasn’t his best game but you have to admire his bottle.”

As for Luke Nicoli, little is known about his ‘bottle’, but like Lampard, this wasn’t his best game either.