►►►►►► Ratings -vs- Lazio ◄◄◄◄◄◄
- Thread starter OmarsComing
- Start date
I will repeat myself again...
He added the "dumb" to my post as a response to me disagreeing with his match ratings in this thread, not the other way round. So by definition for me to have a vendetta - he would have had to do something to me first, which he did not. I disagreed with his ratings on this thread first.
To add the “dumb” to my (5 day old, and probably not been read for 4 days)post so soon after I disagreed with him on his match ratings post in this thread smacks of someone who has looked for any post of mine to “settle a score”.
The fact that he added it to my Reading match ratings has no relation to this apart from the fact it was the easiest of my posts to find as it was my last one. Had I made a more recent post he would have added the "dumb" to that instead (in fact he added a "dumb" to my response to his ratings despite 7 others agreeing with my reasoning.).
I always said I disagreed with his ratings, and gave my reasons for that on the first page of the thread. To suggest otherwise would be untrue.
Also to suggest there is any kind of an agenda against Omar on my part would be untrue also. This is the first time I have given him any rep – good or bad.
He added the "dumb" to my post as a response to me disagreeing with his match ratings in this thread, not the other way round. So by definition for me to have a vendetta - he would have had to do something to me first, which he did not. I disagreed with his ratings on this thread first.
To add the “dumb” to my (5 day old, and probably not been read for 4 days)post so soon after I disagreed with him on his match ratings post in this thread smacks of someone who has looked for any post of mine to “settle a score”.
The fact that he added it to my Reading match ratings has no relation to this apart from the fact it was the easiest of my posts to find as it was my last one. Had I made a more recent post he would have added the "dumb" to that instead (in fact he added a "dumb" to my response to his ratings despite 7 others agreeing with my reasoning.).
I always said I disagreed with his ratings, and gave my reasons for that on the first page of the thread. To suggest otherwise would be untrue.
Also to suggest there is any kind of an agenda against Omar on my part would be untrue also. This is the first time I have given him any rep – good or bad.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,568
Well, that's one argument...but whenever anyone says that, or so it seems to me (maybe this is not true in your case), they are usually imagining that the only complaint is by fragile folk who will crumble into a nothingness of negative self-esteem is someone negs a post. That's not really the case. In the first instance, if you get into it with someone with a big red bar (phwoooooaaaaaarrrrrr) that drawfes their green bar, then you can know straight away that you are dealing with a bit of a loon and there isn't much point trying to talk sense to them. After that, it is also true that there are elements of fairness, consistency and cowardice to be dealt with, not to mention the ugly spectre of cyber-bullying.
By-and-large, I think we should rate positively for what we do agree with rather than negatively what we don't disagree with - but I'ma bit of a mentalist like that
By-and-large, I think we should rate positively for what we do agree with rather than negatively what we don't disagree with - but I'ma bit of a mentalist like that
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 664
Well, that's one argument...but whenever anyone says that, or so it seems to me (maybe this is not true in your case), they are usually imagining that the only complaint is by fragile folk who will crumble into a nothingness of negative self-esteem is someone negs a post. That's not really the case. In the first instance, if you get into it with someone with a big red bar (phwoooooaaaaaarrrrrr) that drawfes their green bar, then you can know straight away that you are dealing with a bit of a loon and there isn't much point trying to talk sense to them. After that, it is also true that there are elements of fairness, consistency and cowardice to be dealt with, not to mention the ugly spectre of cyber-bullying.
By-and-large, I think we should rate positively for what we do agree with rather than negatively what we don't disagree with - but I'ma bit of a mentalist like that
By-and-large, I think we should rate positively for what we do agree with rather than negatively what we don't disagree with - but I'ma bit of a mentalist like that
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,568
And I will repeat myself AGAIN - you said you had been negged by nine members on one post, and that Omar was one of those posters and so you negged his post in this thread, even though there was nothing outlandish in it, so it was you who introduced the idea that you haad been negged first,and not some inability of mine to comprehend well composed texts - comprendre?
If you say that, and claim their was nothing outlandish in that post, then I would look at it and say whether there was or not. If there was, then you would have deserved NINE posters negging you, and should get over it, rather than waiting until you find something you disagree with of his that isn't outlandish and then <DISAGREE> because that suggests that you are being petty and not accepting that you have made an outlandish or offensive post. I really can't say, one way or another, whether this original post you referred to (and now won't link to) was outlandish or offensive, but I can say that it is unusual for nine posters to rate something a <DUMB> or <DISAGREE> unless it really is outlandish or offensive. So what was it? You assert that it wasn't, and therefore you are justified in negging Omar, in which case you may feel like you were redressing the balance (which is, ironically, what you are accusing Omar of). But if it was outlandish or offensive, then it is you that is being petty/vindictive/vengeful for marking a perfectly good post (whether you agree with its content totally or not as a <DISAGREE>. So could you please direct me to this post where you got nine negs where you still believe you were neither outlandish or offensive? And would you confrim that this is why you felt it was justifiable to neg Omar's post even though to the outside observer, like myself, there was nothing wrong with it. If I think you were treated unfairly and ganged-up-on a bit I will say so. But, I repeat, I can't see anything outlandish in Omar's post and I am not familiar with posts getting nine negs for no reason, either.
I never said you hadn't made a post in this thread where Omar could have mutually disagreed, I elucidated that it can be one of many problems, and is so discussed in the thread on ratings (where, I note, you still will not take this despite my repeated broad hints).
If you say that, and claim their was nothing outlandish in that post, then I would look at it and say whether there was or not. If there was, then you would have deserved NINE posters negging you, and should get over it, rather than waiting until you find something you disagree with of his that isn't outlandish and then <DISAGREE> because that suggests that you are being petty and not accepting that you have made an outlandish or offensive post. I really can't say, one way or another, whether this original post you referred to (and now won't link to) was outlandish or offensive, but I can say that it is unusual for nine posters to rate something a <DUMB> or <DISAGREE> unless it really is outlandish or offensive. So what was it? You assert that it wasn't, and therefore you are justified in negging Omar, in which case you may feel like you were redressing the balance (which is, ironically, what you are accusing Omar of). But if it was outlandish or offensive, then it is you that is being petty/vindictive/vengeful for marking a perfectly good post (whether you agree with its content totally or not as a <DISAGREE>. So could you please direct me to this post where you got nine negs where you still believe you were neither outlandish or offensive? And would you confrim that this is why you felt it was justifiable to neg Omar's post even though to the outside observer, like myself, there was nothing wrong with it. If I think you were treated unfairly and ganged-up-on a bit I will say so. But, I repeat, I can't see anything outlandish in Omar's post and I am not familiar with posts getting nine negs for no reason, either.
I never said you hadn't made a post in this thread where Omar could have mutually disagreed, I elucidated that it can be one of many problems, and is so discussed in the thread on ratings (where, I note, you still will not take this despite my repeated broad hints).
I thought we played well against a team who had previously won all their 5 games this season, i really feel that the side is getting better with every game and the future is looking good.
My MOM was Dembele and i thought Jan and Naughton were not far behind, my only real concern is Bale i have seen all the games this season and he is a shadow of the player he can be.
My MOM was Dembele and i thought Jan and Naughton were not far behind, my only real concern is Bale i have seen all the games this season and he is a shadow of the player he can be.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 4,326
Lloris 6 - only because he had nothing to do
Walker 7 - going forward did well but concentration and passing still not quite there yet this season
Caulker 7 - well drilled, nothing flash good prospect
Verts 8 - looking more and more assured with every game
Naughton 6 - not as bad as at Reading but still shaky, worried about when he actually gets a winger against him
Lennon 6 - typical game, great pace but lacking vision and a final ball
Sandro 7 - immense first half tired in the second if I was to offer a criticism it would be that needs to be better with the ball at his feet in terms of creativity
Dembele 8 - my motm has strength, mobility passing etc would love to see him start further forward and be more of a goal threat
Bale 6 - just not happening for him at the moment but worked hard
Dempsey 6 - hard working performance but lacks the creativity needed in the role behind the striker but a good utility acquisition
Defoe 6 - cant fault his effort but contributed very little else
Walker 7 - going forward did well but concentration and passing still not quite there yet this season
Caulker 7 - well drilled, nothing flash good prospect
Verts 8 - looking more and more assured with every game
Naughton 6 - not as bad as at Reading but still shaky, worried about when he actually gets a winger against him
Lennon 6 - typical game, great pace but lacking vision and a final ball
Sandro 7 - immense first half tired in the second if I was to offer a criticism it would be that needs to be better with the ball at his feet in terms of creativity
Dembele 8 - my motm has strength, mobility passing etc would love to see him start further forward and be more of a goal threat
Bale 6 - just not happening for him at the moment but worked hard
Dempsey 6 - hard working performance but lacks the creativity needed in the role behind the striker but a good utility acquisition
Defoe 6 - cant fault his effort but contributed very little else
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
- Messages
- 7,255
Thread starter
#113
respur i never added a dumb rating to any of your older posts, just the post in this thread.
keep on trolling
keep on trolling
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,025
1) Are you suggesting I do. I was making a point of principle, based on the consistent application of set standards. Why do you have to interpret that as something petty?
2) TBH, I'm not really sure to say about that. On the one hand, I haven't actually seen it so can't comment on it's inherent craziness or otherwise. On the other hand, for nine posters to <DISAGREE> with you on one post on a ratings thread does actually suggest that there was something outlandish or unreasonable about it in some way that you have failed to recognise. I could be wrong, of course...if you give me a link I will have a look and see if I can make sense of it for you.
3) That is slightly different to my meaning. If one person gave you a neg in a way that seemed unreasonable, then I would say, for the sake of the consistent application of the agreed standard, maybe you should have done. But for nine posters to do so, again, suggests that it was something more than you saying Player X had a good game when it was only average. The main part of my point being that if you get one unreasable neg then, in my opinion, as it is a <DISAGREE> over a reasonable subjective opinion, it is apparent that you disagree with the negger, also, and it is only fair to apply the same standard for consistency sake. But if you get lots of negs on one post you do look kinda pathetic negging everyone that negged you because it doesn't show up much for them, whereas it does for you, and you look like a feeble child shaking your fist at the teachers for giving you an F on your report. And, again, for nine (NINE) posters to neg you over one ratings post suggest that you didn't just state a bare opinion on performance as Omar did in his post, here.
4) I disagree. There is nothing childish and petty in ensuring an agreed standard is adhered to. To me, what is petty is the giving of negs, ever, on subjective opinions about players when you could discuss them, instead, and this is, after all, a place for discussion.
5) Meaning? I've took far more than <DISAGREE> on the chin in my life, you aren't a superior being or holding any moral ground jsut because you didn't make yourself look foolish in negging nine (NINE - can't get over that) posters in retaliation, for what seems to have been something that must have riled people in some way.
6) Well, if all you did was gave a fair assessment of the game, they should have explained why not, and I would have been the first to defend you on those grounds. If all you did was list players and grade their performance, or stated that player X, Y or Z had a good, bad or indifferent game, even if I totally disagreed with your assessment, I would ahve said it smacked of cyber-bullying for so many members to neg you at the same time. But, again, I can't really say whether it was a wholly outlandish post or not, because I haven't seen it. Bearing in mind, of course, that there would be a big difference between you saying Dembele earned a 5, and just average, against Reading if I thought it was more like 7, on the one hand, and you saying he was an anonymous
and giving him a 1 (in which case I would probably grade it <DUMB>, too, as being totally outlandish).
7) Was it? Why was it? Was it because you did say something totally outlandish? Or because you don't see that the whole system will actually become something petty and childish if it isn't applied consistently?
8) And I comment, on that basis only, to explain why it is problematic doing so, without any background information. Shock horror. Now, if it transpires that your post that got nine (NINE
) negs was wholly outlandish, whereas there is nothing outlandish in Omar's post whether you disagree with it or not, I would say my point stands - there was no reason to give Omar a neg. If, on the other hand, you said nothing outlandish and yet still got nine negs, I would again say it seems a bit like cyber-bullying.
9) I explained in the post you quote why it is problematic. I also suggest you visit the thread discussing the rating system where you will find a debate discussing these issues, and more, in detail.
10)
A: If your only reason for rating Omar's post as <DUMB> when it clearly wasn't was because he rated your post as such elsewhere, then you are being a bit more vengeful than you pretend. Especially if there is nothing <DUMB> about his post (I can't see anything) but there was something outlandish about yours (the one that got NINE negs).
B: Sorry, but that doesn't actually make sense: he gave you a neg there (earlier on the linear time scale), in response to something you did here later on the linear time scale?
11) Neither am I, are you implying I am? I've argued the piont on a range of issues here, where I was virtually the only one taking a given line. But the key point word here is argued - I am happy and willing to debate my viewpoint, I don't see the need to give negs to every single subjective opinion that disagrees with mine.
12) See 11, above - are you suggesting I am only here to blow smoke up anyone's arse, or have it blown up mine? I have taken a stance on some issues when seemingly the whole forum disagreed with me. I just don't see the point in distorting and potentially destroying the forum by misapplying the rating system. It is much more conducive to harmony to give a positive to someone who does agree with your viewpoint, if that was all that was at issue, here, than to indulge in petty vendettas.
13) I agree. You don't seem to have done this here. And, as suggested in 12, above, if everyone just rates every single, simple subjective opinion they disagree with as negative the place will soon descend into a chaos of petty vendettas and confrontations.
Again, I would suggest you check out the ratings thread, and take your discussion there...or, if you did say something utlandish elsewhere (to earn NINE negs on one post) then finally just accpet that, rather than carrying a righteous anger at everyone who pointed this out to you, into other threads.
Sorry, Bear, to intrude on a personal disagreement, but the fella was agreeing with me, and I never said that Naughton had some kind of perfect game, just that he was one of many who I would put on a similar grading (perhaps reflecting how much of a team game it was last night), and on that basis I would give him MOM largely because I think there is too much crap being spouted on this forum about a young player appearing in the team for the first time and playing out of position, who has played reasonably well. And this is something that has carried over from the season before last, when certain posters where, basically saying crap, sell/will never make it as an EPL player, when they could hardly have seen him play and therefore have any idea of how good (or otherwise he would be).
You might disagree with making him MOM on that basis, which is fair enough, or even that he was one of several players on similar grades, which, again, is fair enough, but there is nothing mental about it at all.
Also, he may have hung back on occasion (do you know what instructions he was given?), but it is just not true that he didn't get forward or that he was ineffective when he did.
2) TBH, I'm not really sure to say about that. On the one hand, I haven't actually seen it so can't comment on it's inherent craziness or otherwise. On the other hand, for nine posters to <DISAGREE> with you on one post on a ratings thread does actually suggest that there was something outlandish or unreasonable about it in some way that you have failed to recognise. I could be wrong, of course...if you give me a link I will have a look and see if I can make sense of it for you.
3) That is slightly different to my meaning. If one person gave you a neg in a way that seemed unreasonable, then I would say, for the sake of the consistent application of the agreed standard, maybe you should have done. But for nine posters to do so, again, suggests that it was something more than you saying Player X had a good game when it was only average. The main part of my point being that if you get one unreasable neg then, in my opinion, as it is a <DISAGREE> over a reasonable subjective opinion, it is apparent that you disagree with the negger, also, and it is only fair to apply the same standard for consistency sake. But if you get lots of negs on one post you do look kinda pathetic negging everyone that negged you because it doesn't show up much for them, whereas it does for you, and you look like a feeble child shaking your fist at the teachers for giving you an F on your report. And, again, for nine (NINE) posters to neg you over one ratings post suggest that you didn't just state a bare opinion on performance as Omar did in his post, here.
4) I disagree. There is nothing childish and petty in ensuring an agreed standard is adhered to. To me, what is petty is the giving of negs, ever, on subjective opinions about players when you could discuss them, instead, and this is, after all, a place for discussion.
5) Meaning? I've took far more than <DISAGREE> on the chin in my life, you aren't a superior being or holding any moral ground jsut because you didn't make yourself look foolish in negging nine (NINE - can't get over that) posters in retaliation, for what seems to have been something that must have riled people in some way.
6) Well, if all you did was gave a fair assessment of the game, they should have explained why not, and I would have been the first to defend you on those grounds. If all you did was list players and grade their performance, or stated that player X, Y or Z had a good, bad or indifferent game, even if I totally disagreed with your assessment, I would ahve said it smacked of cyber-bullying for so many members to neg you at the same time. But, again, I can't really say whether it was a wholly outlandish post or not, because I haven't seen it. Bearing in mind, of course, that there would be a big difference between you saying Dembele earned a 5, and just average, against Reading if I thought it was more like 7, on the one hand, and you saying he was an anonymous
and giving him a 1 (in which case I would probably grade it <DUMB>, too, as being totally outlandish).7) Was it? Why was it? Was it because you did say something totally outlandish? Or because you don't see that the whole system will actually become something petty and childish if it isn't applied consistently?
8) And I comment, on that basis only, to explain why it is problematic doing so, without any background information. Shock horror. Now, if it transpires that your post that got nine (NINE
) negs was wholly outlandish, whereas there is nothing outlandish in Omar's post whether you disagree with it or not, I would say my point stands - there was no reason to give Omar a neg. If, on the other hand, you said nothing outlandish and yet still got nine negs, I would again say it seems a bit like cyber-bullying.9) I explained in the post you quote why it is problematic. I also suggest you visit the thread discussing the rating system where you will find a debate discussing these issues, and more, in detail.
10)
A: If your only reason for rating Omar's post as <DUMB> when it clearly wasn't was because he rated your post as such elsewhere, then you are being a bit more vengeful than you pretend. Especially if there is nothing <DUMB> about his post (I can't see anything) but there was something outlandish about yours (the one that got NINE negs
).B: Sorry, but that doesn't actually make sense: he gave you a neg there (earlier on the linear time scale), in response to something you did here later on the linear time scale?
11) Neither am I, are you implying I am? I've argued the piont on a range of issues here, where I was virtually the only one taking a given line. But the key point word here is argued - I am happy and willing to debate my viewpoint, I don't see the need to give negs to every single subjective opinion that disagrees with mine.
12) See 11, above - are you suggesting I am only here to blow smoke up anyone's arse, or have it blown up mine? I have taken a stance on some issues when seemingly the whole forum disagreed with me. I just don't see the point in distorting and potentially destroying the forum by misapplying the rating system. It is much more conducive to harmony to give a positive to someone who does agree with your viewpoint, if that was all that was at issue, here, than to indulge in petty vendettas.
13) I agree. You don't seem to have done this here. And, as suggested in 12, above, if everyone just rates every single, simple subjective opinion they disagree with as negative the place will soon descend into a chaos of petty vendettas and confrontations.
Again, I would suggest you check out the ratings thread, and take your discussion there...or, if you did say something utlandish elsewhere (to earn NINE negs on one post) then finally just accpet that, rather than carrying a righteous anger at everyone who pointed this out to you, into other threads.
Sorry, Bear, to intrude on a personal disagreement, but the fella was agreeing with me, and I never said that Naughton had some kind of perfect game, just that he was one of many who I would put on a similar grading (perhaps reflecting how much of a team game it was last night), and on that basis I would give him MOM largely because I think there is too much crap being spouted on this forum about a young player appearing in the team for the first time and playing out of position, who has played reasonably well. And this is something that has carried over from the season before last, when certain posters where, basically saying crap, sell/will never make it as an EPL player, when they could hardly have seen him play and therefore have any idea of how good (or otherwise he would be).
You might disagree with making him MOM on that basis, which is fair enough, or even that he was one of several players on similar grades, which, again, is fair enough, but there is nothing mental about it at all.
Also, he may have hung back on occasion (do you know what instructions he was given?), but it is just not true that he didn't get forward or that he was ineffective when he did.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 3,580
I have finally got around to posting. I had been looking forward to this match for a while now. I knew it was always going to be an entertaining game against a good Lazio side, I was also looking forward to the atmosphere, the Lazio fans and the spurs fans what more do you want? I really thought we were going to be up for this. How wrong was I, as usual our fans did not really seem that bothered about the UEFA CUP, loads of empty seats, hardly ever got singing and the Lazio fans were loud all game,I think we had one loud bit when we sang "oooo when the spurs" and it was fucking good to hear why could be not keep it up all game, that would be amazing! fair play to tthe Lazio fans, shame about the racists noises but to be honest i never heard them. I wish English fans were more like supporters in Europe. Anyway to the game:
I thought we played well against a good organised, hardworking, dirty Lazio side, who come for the draw. They are a good side who are good on the ball and can play it around but I thought we dominated most of the match. I came away from the game feeling really frustrated, how the fuck did we not win that? They had one real shot which hit the crossbar and couple of chances Klose should of scored but apart from that they never really had a shot at goal.
I still think we lacked some creativity, our movement was quite good but we just seemed to lack something, the final ball, the final shot etc.I dont think Dempesy helped as his movement was generally quite poor, Lennon gets into some really good positions but his final ball is not good enough he needs to be much more clinical, he done well to beat his man a few times but either did not shoot when he had the chance or he just run out of ideas or gave the ball away. Shame ADE was injured for this game we needed someone who could hold the ball up front
I came away from the game feeling a bit shitty after a really good performance watching it back on TV. I thought we keeped the ball well, we worked hard of the ball and should of won the game Overall a good performance against a good side, who can keep the ball well themselves and move the ball around. How the hell they did not have a player sent of is beyond me. Dirty fucking Italians.
Lorris-7.5- Finally we have got a class keeper, you can just tell he is real good.The way he commands his area, the way he keeps the ball going, quick off his line, gives the ball quick, looks very good, said it all along. I am excited!
Walker-6.5 done ok few times got caught defensively.
Vertoghen-7.5 good game, solid, defends well, is good at attacking aswell, brings the ball out well, got skill, good on the ball, very good player just the kind of player I like.
Naughton-6.5 kept getting him mixed up from where I was sitting, think he gave it away in some silly positions it was either him or caulker
Caulker-6.5 done well, few times thought he got caught and gave it away but done well should of scored
Lennon-6.5 worked hard, got in some good positions, some good runs and skill but just not good enough when its come to his final ball, a few times he could of shot but gave it away. Needs to be much more creative. Frustrating grrrrrrrrr.
Sandro-7.5 good game, works so hard, good on the ball too, good game
Dembele-7.5 again good game, very good on the ball, few iffy passes but generally very good. So strong and makes some grat runs.
Bale-6.5 done ok, worked hard, made a few good runs, again lacked something, set pieces were poor also (how many free kicks did we have)
Dempsey-6 thought his movement was quite poor, gave it away alot
Defoe-6.5 tried hard, but was hard for him, few nice touches and passes always gonna be hard for him.
I thought we played well against a good organised, hardworking, dirty Lazio side, who come for the draw. They are a good side who are good on the ball and can play it around but I thought we dominated most of the match. I came away from the game feeling really frustrated, how the fuck did we not win that? They had one real shot which hit the crossbar and couple of chances Klose should of scored but apart from that they never really had a shot at goal.
I still think we lacked some creativity, our movement was quite good but we just seemed to lack something, the final ball, the final shot etc.I dont think Dempesy helped as his movement was generally quite poor, Lennon gets into some really good positions but his final ball is not good enough he needs to be much more clinical, he done well to beat his man a few times but either did not shoot when he had the chance or he just run out of ideas or gave the ball away. Shame ADE was injured for this game we needed someone who could hold the ball up front
I came away from the game feeling a bit shitty after a really good performance watching it back on TV. I thought we keeped the ball well, we worked hard of the ball and should of won the game Overall a good performance against a good side, who can keep the ball well themselves and move the ball around. How the hell they did not have a player sent of is beyond me. Dirty fucking Italians.
Lorris-7.5- Finally we have got a class keeper, you can just tell he is real good.The way he commands his area, the way he keeps the ball going, quick off his line, gives the ball quick, looks very good, said it all along. I am excited!
Walker-6.5 done ok few times got caught defensively.
Vertoghen-7.5 good game, solid, defends well, is good at attacking aswell, brings the ball out well, got skill, good on the ball, very good player just the kind of player I like.
Naughton-6.5 kept getting him mixed up from where I was sitting, think he gave it away in some silly positions it was either him or caulker
Caulker-6.5 done well, few times thought he got caught and gave it away but done well should of scored
Lennon-6.5 worked hard, got in some good positions, some good runs and skill but just not good enough when its come to his final ball, a few times he could of shot but gave it away. Needs to be much more creative. Frustrating grrrrrrrrr.
Sandro-7.5 good game, works so hard, good on the ball too, good game
Dembele-7.5 again good game, very good on the ball, few iffy passes but generally very good. So strong and makes some grat runs.
Bale-6.5 done ok, worked hard, made a few good runs, again lacked something, set pieces were poor also (how many free kicks did we have)
Dempsey-6 thought his movement was quite poor, gave it away alot
Defoe-6.5 tried hard, but was hard for him, few nice touches and passes always gonna be hard for him.
