Week 27

[Backlash]

Unlucky Sleuth

[kennyboy28]

Well up until the 89th minute I was going to win the money. Tim Krul will never be in my team again!!!!!

[CBN]

Cameron (bench player) over Pieters (starter) and that's what cost him. Ouch.

[sleuth]

Well up until the 89th minute I was going to win the money. Tim Krul will never be in my team again!!!!!

To be honest without trying to appear rude, that would of given you only another 20 pts and even if one of that Newcastle back line got Man of the Match 25 pts in total then, bringing up your team, that was leading to 138 points so .......

[kennyboy28]

Well I finished on 124 points. I'm no maths genius however 4 clean sheets onto that would have been 144. I would have assumed either Krul or one of the defenders would have got MOTM so add another 5 points, hence I would have won.

However it's all academic, as always lots of what ifs and maybes. All part of the fun.

[sleuth]

Well I finished on 124 points. I'm no maths genius however 4 clean sheets onto that would have been 144. I would have assumed either Krul or one of the defenders would have got MOTM so add another 5 points, hence I would have won.

However it's all academic, as always lots of what ifs and maybes. All part of the fun.

Apologies confused your team with the original leader MC3 . yes indeed you could of won.

My gripe I guess is that the only goalscorer in the match at Chelsea, that also featured in the 5 moments on the Suns Highlights of the game, that was waxed about lyrically by the commentary only scored a 6/10 how is that.

Hazard scored
Hazard put thru Costa for a clear one on one
Hazard beat 6 players , yes 6 players , put thru Ramires for another one on one who then hit the post.
Hazard then teed up Ramirez for a free header in the 6 yard box which was saved.
Hazard who was thru one on one in the 94 min, who instead squared it for William for an open goal who missed.

all the highlights were Courtois saves or those 5 attacking moments for Chelsea.

The Match report online, talks about a Courtois masterclass and gives glowing prise to Hazard in parts, but fails to mentions it was his trickery and skill that set up Ramires for his shot, after beating 6 players, and the chance at the death for William.

Yes a justifiable 7/10 for Hazard would of won it for me too by 1 point.

I find that mark incredulous and hard to swallow.

Oh and Man Of The Match was Ramirez. and for me that's about the 5th time Courtois has been done out of a clear MOTM by the so called Sun ratings. Their report agrees, their ratings do not.

fishy.

[sleuth]

Cameron (bench player) over Pieters (starter) and that's what cost him. Ouch.

Hazards ridiculous 6/10 for last nights performance is what I find hard to accept.


the mark does not go with the report or certainloy not with their match highlights.

[Jagduracell]

Cameron (bench player) over Pieters (starter) and that's what cost him. Ouch.

Hazards ridiculous 6/10 for last nights performance is what I find hard to accept.


the mark does not go with the report or certainloy not with their match highlights.

I'm sure that will live long in the memory Sleuth. Falcao's 6/10 and Silva's non-starman from week 6 certainly has for me!

[kennyboy28]

I've not played the Sun dream team for that long and I would have to agree that the ratings are somewhat bizarre to say the least. Regarding Hazards rating last night, as you say sleuth, it should have been a definite 7, if not better and a MOTM to go with it.

[t.gridley]

Hard lines Dot, for Hazard to only get a rating of 6 last night is beyond comprehension.
Do not forget Sunday when Willian got man of the match and Hazard again got a 6 rating.
How the hell did Forster get MOM on Tuesday as well?

[the-postman]

very unlucky there mark

I came from the clouds to 12th place..probably the most likely scorer aguero was my only zero

[llama]

Yep, that Hazard rating is a complete joke.

Unlucky Dot.

[Stoneybatter]

Unlucky Dot. You was robbed. The ratings have always been dodgy, but it seems to have gotten much more blatent recently.

[sleuth]

I told my wife last night I think I might of nicked this by 1 point on a team that started the day on 67.
I was afraid De Gea might get MOTM but dodged that bullet.
I was praying Sanchez missed out and it went to anyone else but I didn't dodge that bullet.
Didn't help that Carzola never got a 7/10 that would of swung it for me too.
Watched MOTD and saw Begovic make some decent saves in Stokes win and thought a 7/10 was safe there.

For some reason- on a wind-up the ratings did not come through last night till I guess late morning. (exception City and Liverpool games, infact I stuck up why have the Sun stuck up man City won 1-0 and the talk about Silva when it was 2-0 and Milner scored late on? another game rated early?)Certainly the site was not updated till 6.33 am ( why was that)

I looked at the Sky Sports ratings and thought if the Sun go the same way i've sneaked this, but no they gave Begovic a 6/10 only. I was then clutching at Moses not getting Starman but one of my other Stoke players as I had 6 of them but no, too much to ask again.

I can honestly say I can stomach all that the rough with the smooth, but I really can't get my head around the Rating for Hazard. Also as Terry mentioned earlier his rating in the cup final was also a joke. Earlier in the season Hazard name had only to be on the teamsheet to get MOTM. seems now he is no longer flavour of the month.

The whole Sun app on the game revolves around the 4 clear chances Hazard created, the Hazard goal, and the Courtois masterclass.

I fully expected Courtois to get MOTM and Hazard to get me another 3 points but it wasn't to be. He killed me in the main game earlier in the season scoring MOTM for fun and he's come back to kick me in the bollocks again.

I'm actually that disgruntled about the outcome of the Hazard mark that I had a "Maddog" moment and sent an email to David Watkins and yes I am finding it hard to swallow in this instance.

Hi David,

If you have time could I have some clarification and your opinion on the Dream Team ratings that supposedly go with the match report, and one would assume your mobile-app of the coverage of main highlights on the WHU 0 V 1 Chelsea game last night.

It seems to me every media outlet that I have checked today were fairly unanimous in the praise of Courtois performance and have given him Man Of The Match. The other player that many waxed lyrical about and all rated highly was the goalscorer and matchwinner, Hazard. I have yet to come across any national paper or report on the game where a rating had been given, that has not awarded Hazard a mark of 7 or better.

Sky Sports:

9 Courtois, 8 Hazard

Mirror

8 Courtois, 7 Hazard

Mail

8 Hazard. 7.5 Courtois

Telegraph no ratings but this piece.

Eden Hazard
Performances like the one Hazard delivered at West Ham on Wednesday make you wonder whether comparisons with Ronaldo and Messi really are so far-fetched. Hazard has been Chelsea's outstanding performer this season - even more so than the more lauded Diego Costa - and it was his intervention, with his head, unusually, that proved the difference at Upton Park. He also created a stack of chances for others.

The Sun's app states this on your webpage.
WATCH all the goals and major incidents from the Premier League clash at Upton Park.

I have watched the app several times and among several outstanding saves by courtois, these are the attacking moments you have summarised and highlighted for Chelsea.

22 min Hazard pass to Fabregas, who passes to Ramires who crosses for Hazard to score. 0-1.
35 min Hazard puts Costa clean through with a threaded pinpoint pass for one on one with Adrian, but Jenkinson gets back to intervene.
56 min Hazard beats 6 players in own half. Yes 6 players and then puts through Ramires for one on one with Adrian he hits inside of post.
58 min Hazard traps ball in opposing area, lifts ball into 6 yard box for an unmarked Ramirez to head straight at Adrian.
90 + 4 min Hazard clean through on goal with Adrian to beat, unselfishly squares ball to William who misses from 6 yards, ball kicked off line.

This shows, even with your highlights that Hazard has clearly been Chelsea's main attacking threat. Infact the Telegraph has pretty much summed up Hazards performance last night above earlier in my email.

Charlie Wyett is the match reporter and I'm led to believe by you, is also the person responsible for the Dream Team Ratings for this game.
In his match report his headline is: Hazard strikes as Blues stay strong against Sams slick hammers.

Goes on to say, Sakho had eight chances only to find Blues keeper Courtois in outstanding form to save his unusually wobbly defence. Whu did not get the point they deserved because of a failure to make the most of their chances against a Belgian goalkeeper who is ridiculously good.
Whu started slowly but took control with Courtois making his first crucial save by tearing off his line to block a Koyate effort. Sakho should of levelled but sent a header straight at Courtois. The Blues keeper later showed remarkable agility to keep out Sakho's second-half effort; and so on.

As regards Hazard, in Wyett's match report he says this. "And then Chelsea scored, Some wonderful interplay between Hazard and Fabregas saw the Spaniard switch the ball to Ramires and he crossed for the Belgium- all 5 ft 8 in of him - to charge into the box and head into the net.
Whu were caught square again with Hazard THREADING the ball through for Costa who looked certain to score only for Jenkinson to make up a terrific amount of ground before delivering a breathtaking tackle.

In a rushed last 3 paragraphs summarising the second half Wyett says, Ramires, provider for the opener, thought he had scored only to see his effort hit a post and roll into Adrian's arms ( no mention of Hazard beating 6 players and laying it on a plate for him for this opportunity.) - as per the Sun app in the 56 min.
Also no mention of the chance Hazard teed -up for Ramirez to have a point blank header free in the 6 yard box which he missed in the 58 min - as per the Sun app.
And William had an injury-time effort cleared off the line by Aaron Cresswell, but no mention of Hazard teeing him up also unselfishly when it seemed easier for Hazard to score. - as per the Sun app in the 94th min.

To sum up David, Hazard had an excellent game, scored the only goal and created 4 clear chances demonstrating amazing skills, whilst up the other end Courtois had a blinder and kept Whu at bay.
This was reported in all Newspapers and TV reports and yet not in your game? Well actually it was but the ratings don't fit the match report....

Charlie Wyett in his wisdom gave Man Of The Match to Ramires with a mark of 8/10. This is the player who made one goal and missed two clear chances , one point blank from 6 yards. How can that be justified.
He gave Courtois a mere 7/10, which I find astonishing.
Worst of all he awards a 6/10 mark to the best outfield player on the evening (Hazard), who scored the only goal of the game, and created, as mentioned, 4 clear opportunities with the joint lowest mark for any player on the pitch who started the game.

How can this be acceptable.

My main gripe is the Hazard mark is totally wrong.

Here are your T'S & C'S in what constitutes a mark .


How are Player Ratings Points and Star Man decided?
Player ratings and Star Men are decided by The Sun reporter assigned to the match.
After every game the reporter rates every player a mark out of 10 for their performance.
The best performer in the match as judged by them is awarded the Star Man award.
Hazard was surely one of the better performing players in this game but you have rated 9 players more important in this game with a mark of 7 or better
Player Ratings are then published in The Sun and on-line on the Dream Team website and you are free to debate and argue over which ones you think we’ve got horribly wrong and occasionally which ones we’ve got right.
The rating is decided based on the following criteria:
Involvement in the Game
If during the overall course of a game a player does not make a positive contribution to his team, then he should not normally get a rating greater than 6.
Hazard scored a goal, and created 4 clear goalscoring opportunites spurned by Chelsea .
Inspirational Play
A positive effect on other team members merits a higher rating. Because Dream Team points are allocated for specific events - goals, cautions, clean sheets etc. - there is no need to take these into account in the player rating, unless they stem from the specific positional consideration given below.By way of example, a striker might score two goals in a single game and gets ten Dream Team points for doing so. However both goals could have been complete flukes and, those aside, the striker had no other material involvement in the game. In this case he would not merit a rating of seven or more.
Hazards goal was no fluke, he started the move and ended it as reported in your match report. He was also instrumental in creating a stack of other opportunities for Chelsea with world class skills and passes.
Midfielders
Ratings for midfielders additionally take the following specific positional criteria into consideration: •Defensive contribution •Winning and retaining possession •Offence building and creation of goal-scoring opportunities •Work-rate and work off the ball •Attacking power •Goal attempts
I think Hazards contribution to this game has been covered and strictly speaking any mark below 7 for Hazards performance going by the criteria in your T's & C's is surely wrong and unacceptable.

In a nutshell David, Hazards mark of 6/10 contradicts all of your T's & C's. The reason I am so angry and frustrated in this instance is because it has lost me £5,000. I have finished 2nd in your weekly competition finishing 2 points behind the current leader. The last thing I expected was Hazard not receiving a merit mark of 7 or better going by match commentary and Hazard had to be a candidate for Man Of The Match. If the Sun or whoever does the ratings had awarded Hazard with a correct rating for his contribution and performance which has to be a 7/10 minimum, then this would of given me another 3 points, thus winning this weeks weekly by a single point.
I do feel unjustly robbed in this instance as I repeat Hazards mark of 6 contradicts your T's & C's totally. WHAT IS THE POINT OF GUIDELINES AND RULES?

There is no justification to award Ramirez a better mark than Hazard or even Courtois for that matter going on the performance last night, and I find it hard to swallow that Charlie Wyett, or whoever actually rated this game, felt there were 9 other individual better performances than the Goalscorer, Matchwinner, and main creator Hazard .

Please watch the 5 min summary on the game that you have sent out to millions of mobiles on your Sun App and please try to justify to me why Hazard was not given a 7/10 mark or better, when basically the video revolves around his play!

I look forward to your reply and satisfactory explanation David as the 6/10 rating does not replicate the performance in anyway shape or form.


Dot

Mark Lawlor.

PS this weeks weekly only has 6 games. In your T''s & C's it states there has to be a minimum of 9 games for a weekly.

??

[Giggs11]

Unlucky fatty, scandalous marking as usual has robbed you.

[Maldini]

That's unlucky.

Though I'm sure you'll have benefited from their dodgy ratings at some stage so it's swings and roundabouts.

The begging emails are a bit pathetic though.

[sleuth]

[quote="Maldini"]That's unlucky.

Though I'm sure you'll have benefited from their dodgy ratings at some stage so it's swings and roundabouts.

The begging emails are a bit pathetic though.

Sticking my email on here left me open to the likes of you and nameless others laughing at my expense, then again you wouldn't of believed it was me if I had won..

The point of my email is clear. The Hazard Mark is clearly wrong according to their own T's & C's and I want a proper explanation. Nobody else in the media felt his performance only warranted a 6/10 and that includes their own reporting. Just who does do these ratings.

[Ashers]

Dot - If they change one rating, they will have to review all ratings.

I am sure I could sit here now and amend most players scores one way or the other which would lead to different people winning this week.

[bloggie]

Unlucky Dot. I thought I had the slimmest of chances and only ended up 40th and 56th.

[Maldini]

Dot...

There are marks in every single match that are quite clearly wrong. You've got the shit end of the stick with that one but there'll definitely have been occasions where you've benefitted from them.

I was actually being sincere, it's very unlucky but the game is flawed in that too much (dodgy) subjectivity counts towards who wins and loses.

[sleuth]

Received a reply so time to move on.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your Tremendously in depth email. Yep that looks like a bad rating to me.

Neither I nor Dream Team have any control over these ratings. They are an editorial piece but accept they have an affect on the enjoyment of the game so will treat it with the correct level of concern.

I will therefore forward your email onto our Sports desk for review and ask them to remind all journos of the criteria for rating players.

To confirm there will be no re marking of Hazard or Courtois's ratings.

We have also decided to keep this week's weekly game open despite the terms. This will have no effect on the overall table so you can treat this as a bonus week and one that I could have saved £5k on if I'd been on the ball.

Enjoy.

[Backlash]

What a way to sign off "Enjoy"
wink

[Giggs11]

Sun Headline.

Man City 1 Leicester 0

Makes you wonder if they did the ratings at half-time too as they gave Silva Man Of The Match, in a game Leicester deserved something from by all accounts.Silva was also subbed 15 minutes before the end.


SUN STAR MAN: DAVID SILVA (Man City)

Man City: Hart 6, Sagna 6, Demichelis 6, Mangala 6, Kolarov 7, Toure 6, Fernando 6, Navas 7, Bony 5 (Milner 72, 6), Aguero 6 (Dzeko 85, 5), Silva 8 (Lampard 79, 5).

Leicester: Schwarzer 8, Morgan 7, Huth 6, Upson 7, Simpson 6, Mahrez 6 (Ulloa 77, 5) , Cambiasso 6, James 6, Konchesky 5 (Nugent 57, 5); Schlupp 6, Kramaric 5 (Vardy 58, 6).



DREAM TEAM RATINGS

SUN STAR MAN: JORDAN HENDERSON (Liverpool)

Liverpool: Mignolet 6, Can 6, Skrtel 7, Lovren 5, Sterling 6 (Lambert 90, 5), Allen 7, Henderson 8, Moreno 5 (Toure 72, 5), Lallana 6, Sturridge 7 (Johnson 83, 5), Coutinho 7.

Burnley: Heaton 7, Trippier 6, Keane 5, Shackell 6, Mee 5, Kightly 5 (Wallace 52, 5), Arfield 5, Jones 5, Boyd 5, Ings 5 (Jutkiewicz 90, 5), Barnes 6 (Vokes 65, 5).

Referee: Lee Mason.

Very much at half time especially as the City score is wrong!!!

The worst thing about the Hazard rating is that I always thought the ratings were done based on impact in the game for which scoring the winner in a London derby away from home is a pretty big impact imo.

[CBN]

Hadn't clocked the Hazard mark, jeez that's tough.

[Jagduracell]

Harsh marking but had to have a chuckle at the desperate email. We've all had a whinge at the marks when they have gone against us. Fair play for trying to fight the system though.

[kid kongo]

....real bad luck dot......and the irony being you were only just talking about when you came 2nd in the weekly mini-league a few years back!

116pts in 118th including Aguero with a big fat zip........so no danger from me this time!

Edit: sorry missed Watkins response first time........."ENJOY"....???

F**kers just robbed you of 5 bags but don't worry.....I made a mistake so you get an extra go all on me this weekend!!

You should be soooooo grateful dot!

[sleuth]

....real bad luck dot......and the irony being you were only just talking about when you came 2nd in the weekly mini-league a few years back!

116pts in 118th including Aguero with a big fat zip........so no danger from me this time!

Edit: sorry missed Watkins response first time........."ENJOY"....???

F**kers just robbed you of 5 bags but don't worry.....I made a mistake so you get an extra go all on me this weekend!!

You should be soooooo grateful dot!

The irony eh....

[chrismar]

Very unlucky Dot. Good to get a response from DW as not his fault. Charlie Wyett could do with a word in his ear though.

Remember that Hazard's goal was offside anyway so you still gained 2 points on what you should have got

Keep at it mate.

[Edmondson]

The Hazard mark goes down as one of the most ridiculous, and these are the ones that do need addressing. I think DW should take some responsibly to get rid of the appalling marks, of course they are subjective, but that shouldn't be used to hide behind ones that are plain wrong.

I didn't see the game or the highlights, but Dot's "tremendously" in depth analysis is pretty conclusive, and I caught the Sky Sports panel waxing lyrical about Hazard mid game, had assumed with the winner as well he'd be starman.

Some of the worst marks you can clearly see are done half time, or before the end. But ones like Hazard, what has actually happened there?

Unlucky big man, eyes down, week 28 and another £5k on the table (did they really need that t&c in there, as were always gonna pay out)

[Striker]

Received a reply so time to move on.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your Tremendously in depth email. Yep that looks like a bad rating to me.

Neither I nor Dream Team have any control over these ratings. They are an editorial piece but accept they have an affect on the enjoyment of the game so will treat it with the correct level of concern.

You wuz robbed Dot. Bad luck.

My response to the above e-mail would have been that "as you have no control over the ratings and they are consistently stupid, I suggest that you could drop them from Dream Team. Prior to the internet dominating fantasy football, there was clearly a commercial case for including ratings as a means of boosting newspaper sales, but in today's world that is no longer the case."

"There are many other ways of replacing the ratings points with other points which most fantasy managers would prefer. Some of which, such as say 2 pts for a win and 1 for a draw, would not require any skills which your office boy doesn't already possess. You could even run a competition for suggestions"

Love from

Dot