What is the point in HRK

[biff]

Bit too arbitrary to give a proper indication of a footballers contribution to a match.

[ladida_gunner_graham]

You could do that for many of the players.

What did McCleary do second half apart from a slightly fortuitous goal?
What did Pog do second half apart from the assist?
What did Mackie do second half (in terms of goals, shots, good passes, assists

We had 30% possession, apparently. That's a total of 13 minutes on the ball second half, or approximately one minute per Reading player. I'd say HRK had a very decent proportion based on that one minute average

I'm not disputing how much possession he had. What I'm saying is that of all the possession he did have, he only managed to do anything good within a very small segment of this "excellent" half. The rest, he wasted. As a winger he may not always see the ball, but to concede possession as often as he does, and to fail to contribute when he IS given the ball....this is why he is so criticised.

You asked for a fair hearing for his 2nd half performance and I think I've given him that, and I still find him wanting. You may think differently, but the facts don't really support the view that he had a good half, only a good short spell. And the less said about his first half performance...

I think you may be Hal-ucinting about how well he played.

[Turns8]

Thing is...for someone being bigged up as our 'Big game player'...his contribution throughout the match was fairly minimal compared to say, the likes of Chalobah who seemed to be the main outlet when we needed to relieve pressure or Williams who was always closing players down and using his energy to stiffle alot of Arsenal's build up play.

HRK seems to just close space down or when he actually makes a challenge it is often clumsy and concedes a foul....when he gets the ball he seems to have lost all his pace or is just reluctant to take a player on and instead just stops, turns and takes the safe option of an easy pass or gets tackled...as after about 10mins the opposition realise he is abit 'one trick' and is always going to turn back on himself...

Some of these 'issues' that are out of Clarke's control could include HRK...for example...he seems to be first on the team sheet (despite being average at best), who's decision was it to give him the number 9 (ok only a shirt number, but a sign of ego, when clearly he isn't a number 9), the whole issue with his contract negotiations under Anton (his brother/agent being his mouthpiece etc)....I would not be at all surprised if along with Guthrie, the likes of HRK and possibly a couple of others (who may surprise some fans) are the disruptive influences that Clarke has referred to...with certain players only playing because Clarke's hands are either tied by some crazy 'has to play if fit' clause or there hasn't been anyone else to cover that position...Remember Anton was trying to run the club like a computer game...so ridiculous clauses wouldn't surprise me!!!

[Woodcote Royal]

You could do that for many of the players.



What did McCleary do second half apart from a slightly fortuitous goal?

What did Pog do second half apart from the assist?

What did Mackie do second half (in terms of goals, shots, good passes, assists)?


We had 30% possession, apparently. That's a total of 13 minutes on the ball second half,
or approximately one minute per Reading player.

I'd say HRK had a very decent proportion based on that one minute average

How the fcuk does any of the above dispel the ludicrous myth that HRK had an "excellent" 2nd half

While I was immensely proud of the teams' performance and look forward to seeing our young players develop next season, at best, HRK's 2nd half performance was marginally less irrelevant than most of his contributions I've seen recently.

For many seasons now he has tried the patience of even the most loyal fans and is fast approaching the end of his rope in this respect.


This is one of many big decisions Hammond and Clarke have to make this summer and, as things stand, Jem going and HRK staying will go down like a lead ballon with the fan base and for good reason.

[Extended-Phenotype]

I would not be at all surprised if along with Guthrie, the likes of HRK and possibly a couple of others (who may surprise some fans) are the disruptive influences that Clarke has referred to...

When?

[Turns8]

Post match comments when Clarke refers to things going on that he can't comment on...

[Extended-Phenotype]

Post match comments when Clarke refers to things going on that he can't comment on...

What did he actually say, though? Did he use the term "disruptive influence"?

[tidus_mi2]

Post match comments when Clarke refers to things going on that he can't comment on...

What did he actually say, though? Did he use the term "disruptive influence"?

He doesn't, I tried to find the quote myself but couldn't find it, it was basically him saying he's identified the problem with the team but it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss it now. So then you just have to speculate what problem there can be that can't be discussed.

I'd rule out team balance and team building definitely as I can't see why that couldn't be discussed, if I had to hazard a guess, we're possibly talking about some disruptive influence in the team, be it attitudes, disproportionate wages or players under-performing and in essence letting the team down.

It could also be down to the contract situation, with many out of contract this summer, there may be an air of uncertainty around the players, suddenly we hear that contracts will be discussed now the semi-final has passed so if that was an issue, hopefully it will be resolved.

[melonhead]

Post match comments when Clarke refers to things going on that he can't comment on...

What did he actually say, though? Did he use the term "disruptive influence"?

He doesn't, I tried to find the quote myself but couldn't find it, it was basically him saying he's identified the problem with the team but it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss it now. So then you just have to speculate what problem there can be that can't be discussed.

I'd rule out team balance and team building definitely as I can't see why that couldn't be discussed, if I had to hazard a guess, we're possibly talking about some disruptive influence in the team, be it attitudes, disproportionate wages or players under-performing and in essence letting the team down.

It could also be down to the contract situation, with many out of contract this summer, there may be an air of uncertainty around the players, suddenly we hear that contracts will be discussed now the semi-final has passed so if that was an issue, hopefully it will be resolved.

that problem is clearly one of not having a good enough strikeforce, and no money to purchase one.

[melonhead]

with certain players only playing because Clarke's hands are either tied by some crazy 'has to play if fit' clause or there hasn't been anyone else to cover that position

#

the 'crazy' clauses that he agreed to because he needed players of quality brought in to keep us up, and this was the only way to do it without paying any actual money out?

[Angry Shed Sex]

He was also crucial in us scoring our Wembley goal

That's stretching it a bit far Snowers. So we're now counting assists for assists?

I'm not a lover of HRK but I thought he did OK.

Not a stretch at all. His part in that goal was, indeed, crucial.

Held it up very well in a tight spot, under severe pressure, and a very neat short pass for Pog by the by-line

Such subjective language Snowers - for one who lives and dies by his statistics.

[Royal Rother]

Apologies for trespassing on Snowball's turf, this is going to be a somewhat anal post, but necessary to clear up HRK's performance. No one is even suggesting the first half was good for him, so I ignored that. As others have claimed the second half was "great" or "excellent" I've looked at that as objectively as possible using the full game, not highlights. I assessed every touch he had and gave them a '+1' for a positive contribution, a '0' for something neutral/not significant and a '-1' when detrimental to Reading. I saw no off the ball play that can be included - some basic closing down only. So, to summarise:-

- 1 significant pass (to Pog for set up for goal)
- 2 meaningful passes (played Obita in down left to cross & plays ball to Pog's feet on edge of box)
- 5 successful but low impact passes
- 3 crosses, 1 out for goal kick, two blocked at source (albeit one could have been given handball, but still too close to defender)
- 3 fouls conceded, 1 in problem area
- conceded possession 9 times
- two "runs", both times into space, shepherded, but does not beat anyone (in fact, did not beat a single player all half)

Every one of his positive contributions happened in a 7 minute spell, between the 53rd and 60th minute. There was nothing that I'd count as positive outside those times. Minute in red.
Score Action
0 50 Foul on Ozil (not threatening position)
0 52 5 yard unchallenged, sideways pass to Williams
-1 52 Crossed behind goal (Murphy described it as "very poor")
0 53 Through ball to Mackie (who was 2 yards offside)
0 53 Receives ball, tackled, Reading throw
+1 53 Rec. ball, slides pass to Pog (GOAL)
+1 56 Rec. ball, 20 yard run into space, lays off to Mackie
+1 56 Plays in Obita down line to cross
0 & +1 57 Rec. ball, mis-controls, foot up to win back the ball, fouls Mertesacker (leading to him going off - got to be a +1)
+1 60 1-2 with Chalobah, 30 yard run into space, plays ball to Pog on edge of box
-1 63 Receives ball, loses possession
0 64 Under challenge, heads ball out of play,
-1 64 Receives ball, tried to cross twice, hits player in front of him, loses possession
-1 69 Rec. ball, mis-controls, tries to win it back, concedes foul
-1 71 Foul on Ramsey - dangerous position, Arsenal nearly score
-1 74 Rec. ball from throw, fails to control, concedes possession
0 77 Rec. ball, loses possession but was probably fouled, not given
-1 79 Rec. ball, plays long ball down field under no pressure, no Reading player within 20 yards
-1 85 Rec. ball, plays pass straight out of play, 10 yards from any Reading player, Arsenal throw

So, blinkers off everyone.....is this the summary of an excellent half? Nothing of consequence outside a 7 minute spell?

Good work.

I respect loyalty to one's own and am absolutely not one to criticise players* for the hell of it. In fact I have displayed no axe to grind on HRK in the past but to be honest am completely baffled by any bigging up of his performance. He was atrocious in the 1st half, and marginally less so in the 2nd.

Still, that's obviously enough for some people.

* Leroy Lita was probably the most recent...

[Ian Royal]

The problem is, RR, that that assessment only works if it's alongside the same assessment for other players, even assuming it's done properly in the first place. By isolating HRK, that's only ever going to produce a negative perception unless he's had a worldy. It also fails to account for any off the ball defensive work amongst other things.

Also the weighting of marks is terrible with only a 3 point difference between best and worst. He gets the same positive mark for playing a big role in the goal as a negative mark for losing possession regardless of consequences.

On top of that, you've got to be a bit sub-normal to watch 45 minutes of football with a notepad to assess an individual player's impact... it'd take over an hour.

I'm no big fan of HRK and it's plain to me he had a good second half at absolute least and he wasn't that poor first half.

[ladida_gunner_graham]

The problem is, RR, that that assessment only works if it's alongside the same assessment for other players, even assuming it's done properly in the first place. By isolating HRK, that's only ever going to produce a negative perception unless he's had a worldy

.

No, all we ask is he does more good things than bad. He didn't. It only produces a negative impression if, on the balance of play he does insufficiently positive things. Sh1t, how hard is this?

It also fails to account for any off the ball defensive work amongst other things.

No, I explicitly said that I did not include that as he did nothing of note. In fact, he did not force any errors from his off the ball work, but let Arsenal players slide by him too easily on two occasions near the end, so if anything, probably a negative point for him.

Also the weighting of marks is terrible with only a 3 point difference between best and worst. He gets the same positive mark for playing a big role in the goal as a negative mark for losing possession regardless of consequences.

Seriously ? You want a weighted scoring system? Yeah, that would really clear things up, and definitely not give you a multitude of things to dispute.

On top of that, you've got to be a bit sub-normal to watch 45 minutes of football with a notepad to assess an individual player's impact... it'd take over an hour.

I am, and it did. Yes indeed, why look at the actual performance of a player to assess their actual performance. Idiotic. Better to simply say something stupid and unsubstantiated like "it's plain to me he had a good second half at absolute least" when some kind soul has already spent an hour of his precious time demonstrating that is not really the case. But, that's irrelevant, what knob end is going to say that?

I'm no big fan of HRK and it's plain to me he had a good second half at absolute least and he wasn't that poor first half.

Good point Ian.

[Royal Rother]

[OldBiscuit]

Apologies for trespassing on Snowball's turf, this is going to be a somewhat anal post, but necessary to clear up HRK's performance. No one is even suggesting the first half was good for him, so I ignored that. As others have claimed the second half was "great" or "excellent" I've looked at that as objectively as possible using the full game, not highlights. I assessed every touch he had and gave them a '+1' for a positive contribution, a '0' for something neutral/not significant and a '-1' when detrimental to Reading. I saw no off the ball play that can be included - some basic closing down only. So, to summarise:-

- 1 significant pass (to Pog for set up for goal)
- 2 meaningful passes (played Obita in down left to cross & plays ball to Pog's feet on edge of box)
- 5 successful but low impact passes
- 3 crosses, 1 out for goal kick, two blocked at source (albeit one could have been given handball, but still too close to defender)
- 3 fouls conceded, 1 in problem area
- conceded possession 9 times
- two "runs", both times into space, shepherded, but does not beat anyone (in fact, did not beat a single player all half)

Every one of his positive contributions happened in a 7 minute spell, between the 53rd and 60th minute. There was nothing that I'd count as positive outside those times. Minute in red.
Score Action
0 50 Foul on Ozil (not threatening position)
0 52 5 yard unchallenged, sideways pass to Williams
-1 52 Crossed behind goal (Murphy described it as "very poor")
0 53 Through ball to Mackie (who was 2 yards offside)
0 53 Receives ball, tackled, Reading throw
+1 53 Rec. ball, slides pass to Pog (GOAL)
+1 56 Rec. ball, 20 yard run into space, lays off to Mackie
+1 56 Plays in Obita down line to cross
0 & +1 57 Rec. ball, mis-controls, foot up to win back the ball, fouls Mertesacker (leading to him going off - got to be a +1)
+1 60 1-2 with Chalobah, 30 yard run into space, plays ball to Pog on edge of box
-1 63 Receives ball, loses possession
0 64 Under challenge, heads ball out of play,
-1 64 Receives ball, tried to cross twice, hits player in front of him, loses possession
-1 69 Rec. ball, mis-controls, tries to win it back, concedes foul
-1 71 Foul on Ramsey - dangerous position, Arsenal nearly score
-1 74 Rec. ball from throw, fails to control, concedes possession
0 77 Rec. ball, loses possession but was probably fouled, not given
-1 79 Rec. ball, plays long ball down field under no pressure, no Reading player within 20 yards
-1 85 Rec. ball, plays pass straight out of play, 10 yards from any Reading player, Arsenal throw

So, blinkers off everyone.....is this the summary of an excellent half? Nothing of consequence outside a 7 minute spell?

I seriously think that you need to find a hobby. Really!

[MmmMonsterMunch]

The problem is, RR, that that assessment only works if it's alongside the same assessment for other players, even assuming it's done properly in the first place. By isolating HRK, that's only ever going to produce a negative perception unless he's had a worldy

.

No, all we ask is he does more good things than bad. He didn't. It only produces a negative impression if, on the balance of play he does insufficiently positive things. Sh1t, how hard is this?

It also fails to account for any off the ball defensive work amongst other things.

No, I explicitly said that I did not include that as he did nothing of note. In fact, he did not force any errors from his off the ball work, but let Arsenal players slide by him too easily on two occasions near the end, so if anything, probably a negative point for him.

Also the weighting of marks is terrible with only a 3 point difference between best and worst. He gets the same positive mark for playing a big role in the goal as a negative mark for losing possession regardless of consequences.

Seriously ? You want a weighted scoring system? Yeah, that would really clear things up, and definitely not give you a multitude of things to dispute.

On top of that, you've got to be a bit sub-normal to watch 45 minutes of football with a notepad to assess an individual player's impact... it'd take over an hour.

I am, and it did. Yes indeed, why look at the actual performance of a player to assess their actual performance. Idiotic. Better to simply say something stupid and unsubstantiated like "it's plain to me he had a good second half at absolute least" when some kind soul has already spent an hour of his precious time demonstrating that is not really the case. But, that's irrelevant, what knob end is going to say that?

I'm no big fan of HRK and it's plain to me he had a good second half at absolute least and he wasn't that poor first half.

Good point Ian.

You've Ian'd Ian.

[harry]

The problem is, RR, that that assessment only works if it's alongside the same assessment for other players, even assuming it's done properly in the first place. By isolating HRK, that's only ever going to produce a negative perception unless he's had a worldy

.

No, all we ask is he does more good things than bad. He didn't. It only produces a negative impression if, on the balance of play he does insufficiently positive things. Sh1t, how hard is this?

It also fails to account for any off the ball defensive work amongst other things.

No, I explicitly said that I did not include that as he did nothing of note. In fact, he did not force any errors from his off the ball work, but let Arsenal players slide by him too easily on two occasions near the end, so if anything, probably a negative point for him.

Also the weighting of marks is terrible with only a 3 point difference between best and worst. He gets the same positive mark for playing a big role in the goal as a negative mark for losing possession regardless of consequences.

Seriously ? You want a weighted scoring system? Yeah, that would really clear things up, and definitely not give you a multitude of things to dispute.

On top of that, you've got to be a bit sub-normal to watch 45 minutes of football with a notepad to assess an individual player's impact... it'd take over an hour.

I am, and it did. Yes indeed, why look at the actual performance of a player to assess their actual performance. Idiotic. Better to simply say something stupid and unsubstantiated like "it's plain to me he had a good second half at absolute least" when some kind soul has already spent an hour of his precious time demonstrating that is not really the case. But, that's irrelevant, what knob end is going to say that?

I'm no big fan of HRK and it's plain to me he had a good second half at absolute least and he wasn't that poor first half.

Good point Ian.

Maybe you could spend the entire summer debating a weighted score system. Then next season we can analyse every player's contribution for every minute of every game. What could possibly go wrong .....

[Snowball]

Just as an example, if HRK (or anyone) tracks a runner so the ball doesn't go to that runner, he "did nothing" ...


Wasn't Harper very good at always filling the space to prevent the crucial pass? Valueless?

[Hoop Blah]

Just as an example, if HRK (or anyone) tracks a runner so the ball doesn't go to that runner, he "did nothing" ...


Wasn't Harper very good at always filling the space to prevent the crucial pass? Valueless?

Well this is slightly ironic....