United-Burn Grades Thread [R]

Rimando - 7
Namoff - 6
Nelsen - 7
Prideaux - 6
Olsen - 6
Alegria - 5
Convey - 6
Kovalenko - 5
Etcheverry - 6
Quaranta - 7
Stewart - 4
Stoitchkov - 4
Eskandarian - 4

 

Rimando - 7
Namoff - 6
Nelsen - 7
Prideaux - 6
Olsen - 8
Alegria - 5
Convey - 5
Kovalenko - 6
Etcheverry - 7
Quaranta - 6.5
Stewart - 4
Stoitchkov - 4
Eskandarian - 4
Hudson- 3

 

Based on the 5-Is-Average Scale:
Rimando-6.5
Namoff-6
Nelsen-6.5
Prideaux 5.5
Olsen 6.5
Alegria 6
Convey 5
Kovalenko 4.5
Etcheverry 5.5
Quaranta 5
Stewart 4
Stoitchkov 4
Eskandarian 4.5

 

Rimando - 6.5
Namoff - 5.5
Nelsen - 6.5
Prideaux - 6.0
Olsen - 6.0
Alegria - 5.0
Convey - 6.0
Kovalenko - 5.5
Etcheverry - 5.0
Quaranta - 6.5
Stewart - 4.0
Stoitchkov - 4.0
Eskandarian - NR

 

Rimando-7 Met every challenge Dallas put up. A couple bad moments distribution-wise, but looked good overall.
Namoff-7 Did well in a simple role. Around the 70th minute I realized that I hadn't had any thoughts on Namoff, which says that he played a quiet but solid game.
Nelsen-7.5 Ryan Nelsen is the man. The best player on either side for my money. He only seems to be getting better each game.
Prideaux-7 What we've come to expect from Prideaux. Strong, quiet (though he did come upfield more often than we're used to seeing) and reliable despite going up against an explosive Eddie Johnson.
Olsen-6.5 Showed his usual work rate and heart, but was a bit subdued in the attack. Only a couple crosses, and didn't even attempt many runs into the middle. Good defensively, though.
Alegria-6.5 Plugged most of the holes and showed good discipline. His passing was not as good as usual tonight, but he did a decent job.
Convey-7 Slow start, but continued his good showing in the middle. He should be allowed to take a corner every now and then.
Etcheverry-6.5 Looked good during the opening 20 minutes, but got into the argument with the official and lost a bit of the edge he had. Did alright int he run of play, but his set pieces were a let down tonight.
Kovalenko-6 Lots of work off the ball both offensively and defensively, but has still not played like the player he was in Chicago. Several times he just didn't go into tackles when he could have stopped Dallas, and the lunge on O'Brien was reckless. Not a bad game, but so far I'm not exactly thrilled with him.
Quaranta-7 Did ok as a forward, but looked much better as a left midfielder. He needs to use that dribbling when he's a striker more often, and be willing to shoot when it's not a perfect chance. A good outing, though.
Stewart-6.5 The team did a better job of getting him the ball tonight, and he did well during buildups. He needs to do more in getting into dangerous positions in the box.
Stoitchkov-6 Not the player that came on last week. Perhaps it's a holdover from being with Chicago, but it seemed that he was just as interested in the mind games with Dallas players as he was in changing the game. Could have gotten a second yellow when he pushed (Morrow?) away after getting his first.
Eskandarian-5 I was going to give him an NR, but you can't play 20 minutes in a 3 forward alignment and not do something notable. Was rather invisible, though it's good to see him recover so fast from that fall against Chicago.

 

Rimando - 6.5
Namoff - 6
Nelsen - 6.5
Prideaux - 6.5
Olsen - 6.5
Alegria - 6
Convey - 6.5
Kovalenko - 6.5
Etcheverry - 6
Quaranta - 6
Stewart - 7 Man Of the Match
Stoitchkov - 5
Eskandarian - 4.5

Hudson - 3.5 Needs to spend less time arguing with the 4th offical and more time paying attention to his team and tactics. Eskandarian should have come in for Quaranta. Tino played well but had run out of gas at that point. Stewart was an intergal part of the attack at that point and frankly the attack became pretty toothless once has was subbed. Tino was still out of gas when overtime came and Curtis has warmed up hard and was ready. Curtis should have come in at some point in OT to spark this attack. You can't leave a substition choice, be it Quintanilla or Curtis, on the bench in that situation.

 

Simple

Basically no one on the attack can receive a higher rating than 5.5 and all the defenders deserve 7+ for a 100 minutes of scoreless soccer. I see attackers getting 6's and 7's but the "attack" earned zero goals...so how good was it?
Granted the officiating was probably a 4 but I just wish Ray's coaching would've been upto to the 4 level.
What is he a cheerleader or a coach? Another embarrassing evening on the sidelines for Uncle Ray.

 

... Mod's Note ...

I suspect it would be best to reserve this thread for grades in the format albionroad requested. Other commentary should probably go in the other thread.

 

[size=-4]On a scale of 1 to 10, as requested, unless you skew positively or negatively then 1-5 would be below average and 6-10 would be above average--otherwise you'd have an unequal number of above and below average ratings. To get back to the 1-9 scale with 5 being average just use the values in parenthesis:
10 (9) "That was one of the best performances I'll ever see in MLS"
9 (8) "That was one of the best performances I'll see this season in MLS"
8 (7) "That was one of the best performances I'll see this week in MLS"
7 (6) "That was a moderately above-average MLS performance."
6 (5.5) "That was a slightly above-average MLS performance."
5 (4.5) "That was a slightly below-average MLS performance."
4 (4) "That was a moderately below-average MLS performance."
3 (3) "That was one of the worst performances I'll see this week in MLS"
2 (2) "That was one of the worst performances I'll see this season in MLS"
1 (1) "That was one of the worst performances I'll ever see in MLS"[/size]

I came out with an rating of 5.5/10 for the starters, but factoring in the subs and Hudson then the whole team ends up with a slightly below-average rating somewhere around 5/10 which seems appropriate since we were at home and earned only one-third of the possible points.

Rimando 7/10
Namoff 6/10
Nelsen 7/10
Prideaux 6/10
Olsen 5/10
Alegria 6/10
Convey 5/10
Kovalenko 5/10
Etcheverry 3/10
Quaranta 6/10
Stewart 5/10
Stoitchkov 4/10
Eskandarian 4/10

Hudson 3/10

 

ouch!
I completely disagree with that Etcheverry rating. Look what he did compared to Stewart. At least el Diablo got a shot on goal at some point during the match...

 

Rimando - 7
Namoff - 5
Nelsen - 6.5
Prideaux - 6
Olsen - 7
Alegria - 7 (best hustling & positioning I've ever seen from him of course he also had a couple giveaways)
Convey - 7.5
Kovalenko - 6
Etcheverry - 5.5
Quaranta - 5 (shoot the ball)
Stewart - 4.5 (max salary disappointment)
Stoitchkov - 4 (exactly the opposite of what we needed)
Eskandarian - NR

 

Rimando - 6.5
Namoff - 6
Nelsen - 7
Prideaux - 6.5
Olsen - 6
Alegria - 5.5
Convey - 6
Kovalenko - 6
Etcheverry - 5.5
Quaranta - 6
Stewart - 5
Stoitchkov - 5
Eskandarian - 5

 

Rimando - 7
Namoff - 6
Nelsen - 5
Prideaux - 5
Olsen - 7
Alegria - 5
Convey - 6
Kovalenko - 6
Etcheverry - 6
Quaranta - 5
Stewart - 5
Stoitchkov - 5
Eskandarian - 5

 

Rimando - 7
Namoff - 6
Nelsen - 5
Prideaux- 6
Olsen - 5
Alegria - 6
Convey - 6
Kovalenko - 5
Etcheverry - 5
Quaranta - 7 (MOTM)
Stewart - 4
Stoitchkov - 4
Eskandarian - 5

 

Re: Re: United-Burn Grades Thread [R]

I find that extremely helpful. Thanks.

 

Rimando-6 steady, but didn't really have much to do
Namoff - 6.5 good performance in a stand-in role
Nelsen - 7 what we've come to expect from him
Prideaux - 7 was busting his butt all over the defensive line, had to track down a lot of tough passes
Olsen - 5 didn't impress me too much
Alegria - 5.5 worked well with the rest of his midfield mates
Convey - 7.5 turned it on in the 2nd half and looked very dangerous
Kovalenko - 5 I don't get why everyone loves this thug so much
Etcheverry - 5 had some good moments, but set plays were subpar
Quaranta - 6.5 some smart passing, but was better in the midfield than at forward
Stewart - 4 gets in good positions, but wastes the good chances
Stoitchkov - 4 being an arrogant jerk isn't going to help us win games
Eskandarian - 4.5 didn't really make an impact

 

Re: Re: United-Burn Grades Thread [R]

I was always taught, and most ratings systems use 6 as the median, meaning... "neither added nor took away from the game"

So if a player doesn't help his team, but doesn't hurt it, they get a 6.

Naturally, most ratings are skewed to give higher ratings... score 2 goals, get a 9 or 10, but it is quite difficult for a field player to be (fairly) judged a 1, 2, or 3.

If a keeper has given up 5 goals, sure, then he can get a 2 rating.

Problem is, everyone on this board has some type of bias (Hate Etch, Hate Convey, etc.) and that's their perrogative to rate that way, but people should try rating some games that DC doesn't play and then see if you can unbiasly use the same system towards DC.

Either way, my ratings...

Rimando - 7
Namoff - 7
Nelsen - 8
Prideaux - 7
Olsen - 7
Alegria - 6
Convey - 7
Kovalenko - 6
Etcheverry - 6
Quaranta - 7
Stewart - 5
Stoitchkov - 6
Eskandarian - 6

 

Re: Re: Re: United-Burn Grades Thread [R]

good points
The man of the match should almost always have a 8 or 9 rating (or the rare 10 for those 3-goal or multi-assist games where the guy was just unstoppable).

 

Rimando - 7
Namoff - 6
Nelsen - 6.5
Prideaux - 6
Olsen - 6
Alegria - 5.5
Convey - 6.5
Kovalenko - 6
Etcheverry - 6
Quaranta - 7
Stewart - 6
Stoitchkov - 5
Eskandarian - 4.5

Referree - 0.5 he gets .5 for showing up in the right place for the game.

Thought we played well and should of won the game. DJ Countess made an unreal save on Kovalenko's header and we whould of had a PK when Quaranta was takend down in the box from behind at the 15th minute.

The wins will come - The Far Side