Jump to content


Photo

Man Of The Match Concept For Our Club.


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Calico

Calico

    Mick Lyons

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 756 posts

Posted 30 Aug 2009 - 21:42

So upon looking at the current MotM thread I see that a few people seem to be of the opinion that no matter what impact a player has on a game that if they're a sub who has been on for a relatively short period of time that they do not deserve to be called man of the match.

It is something I have always wondered about with regards to how other people felt so with that in mind . . .

For Everton football club (and no other team) does a player have to have been on the pitch for a certain amount of time to be considered man of the match?


Personally, I think that if a player has the most impact upon a match regardless of length of time on the pitch then they deserve the award.

Edited by Calico, 30 Aug 2009 - 21:42.

  • 0

#2 holystove

holystove

    Art Vandelay

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 30 Aug 2009 - 22:43

So upon looking at the current MotM thread I see that a few people seem to be of the opinion that no matter what impact a player has on a game that if they're a sub who has been on for a relatively short period of time that they do not deserve to be called man of the match.

It is something I have always wondered about with regards to how other people felt so with that in mind . . .

For Everton football club (and no other team) does a player have to have been on the pitch for a certain amount of time to be considered man of the match?


Personally, I think that if a player has the most impact upon a match regardless of length of time on the pitch then they deserve the award.


I think it's whatever you in your mind want it to be ... apparently two people thought Billy was MOTM against Wigan :).

It would have course help if the ones that voted would also post their reasons.
  • 0

#3 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,402 posts

Posted 30 Aug 2009 - 22:57

It's about impact on the game....time on the pitch is irrelevant I think.

If a game's a tedious 0-0 and someone comes on as a sub after 85mins and scores then he's very likely to be the man.

Don't have to go far back for an example, cup replay against Liverpool in Feb Gosling got 15 MOTM votes from the bench...even VDM got 5....although the winner was Jags with 32 :) .
  • 0

#4 Bill

Bill

    Alex. Top player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,485 posts

Posted 31 Aug 2009 - 06:59

I think it's whatever you in your mind want it to be ... apparently two people thought Billy was MOTM against Wigan :).
It would have course help if the ones that voted would also post their reasons.


I made the post pointing that out on the MOTM thread, he appeared for the last five minutes and I'm not sure if he even touched the ball. Crazy logic for a MOTM. :blink: :blink:
  • 0

#5 Everton_Worshiper

Everton_Worshiper

    David Moyes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 31 Aug 2009 - 09:11

You will always get people voting for their favourite player despite their performance or lack thereof.
You can't start vetting the votes, if someone votes for a player then the vote for that player counts like everyone elses. We can frown on their choice but it still counts.
  • 0

#6 holystove

holystove

    Art Vandelay

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 31 Aug 2009 - 09:27

I made the post pointing that out on the MOTM thread, he appeared for the last five minutes and I'm not sure if he even touched the ball. Crazy logic for a MOTM. :blink: :blink:


You're right but that's why people should always make a post if they vote IMO. Is this in any way possible to implement?

I think it's obvious that Fellaini is one of my favorite players, but every time I've voted for him I've made it a point to justify myself thereby (trying to) excluding favoritism as a possible objection of others towards my vote. (full disclose : I've yet to vote for him this year :) all though I came awfully close yesterday).
  • 0

#7 Calico

Calico

    Mick Lyons

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 756 posts

Posted 31 Aug 2009 - 11:21

Maybe one of the rules could be for people to verify their vote by simply posting a response with whatever option they choose? Then you basically disregard any votes which haven't been verified. It's a bit of a pain to maintain but a viable option nonetheless.
  • 0

#8 Everton_Worshiper

Everton_Worshiper

    David Moyes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 31 Aug 2009 - 15:35

Maybe one of the rules could be for people to verify their vote by simply posting a response with whatever option they choose? Then you basically disregard any votes which haven't been verified. It's a bit of a pain to maintain but a viable option nonetheless.


Again, this is no good. You cannot tell people to vote and justify themselves - or from what you say someone just needs to post "because I said so". Who is going to judge the votes (who would want the overhead of judging the votes?)?

Should just leave it as it is.
  • 0

#9 Ian C

Ian C

    100% Guaranteed Irish

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,764 posts

Posted 31 Aug 2009 - 15:39

Personally I think someone should need to be on the pitch for 10 minutes unless Mike determines it was a performance that warrants entry.
  • 0

#10 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,015 posts

Posted 31 Aug 2009 - 15:59

you can come on the pitch for two minutes and score two goals, that could justify being motm. no need to change it.
  • 0

#11 Ian C

Ian C

    100% Guaranteed Irish

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,764 posts

Posted 31 Aug 2009 - 16:02

Personally I think someone should need to be on the pitch for 10 minutes unless Mike determines it was a performance that warrants entry.



Covered that, mate :P
  • 0

#12 Bill

Bill

    Alex. Top player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,485 posts

Posted 31 Aug 2009 - 17:08

You will always get people voting for their favourite player despite their performance or lack thereof.
You can't start vetting the votes, if someone votes for a player then the vote for that player counts like everyone elses. We can frown on their choice but it still counts.



I'm with EW on this, they vote for whoever they like, Its a registered vote and we have to accept it, but it wont stop me commenting on it in the future. :D .
  • 0

#13 Blue 250

Blue 250

    Bob Latchford

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts

Posted 31 Aug 2009 - 17:28

A boring 0-0 can be turned on it's head by a sub who scores the winner in the dying minute.surely then he's the man of the match!! what about that defender who's performed heroics keeping the opponents from scoring in the previous 89 minutes.....what of him?

Vaughan came on against Birmingham a couple of seasons back, 1-1 at the time, last couple of minutes he scored two goals......subs can win games, subs can win man of the match awards!

Leave people alone to vote for who they want, it's hardley going to change anything if someone votes for an undeserved player.As long as you can live with your own choice why worry.

Just check out some post match posts, the same player will be rubbish acording to some, but will have had a great game in other peoples eyes.....Fellaini being the best example of this. He ranges from waste of money to just about player of the year last season!!

Leave it as it is.......I think the best player tends to come out on top in the end.
  • 0

#14 holystove

holystove

    Art Vandelay

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 31 Aug 2009 - 17:30

Again, this is no good. You cannot tell people to vote and justify themselves - or from what you say someone just needs to post "because I said so". Who is going to judge the votes (who would want the overhead of judging the votes?)?

Should just leave it as it is.


The judge would be the collective of TT .. If you vote for someone saying "because I said so", all your posts loose credibility.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users