Alright, let’s talk about how I got to my England player ratings after the last match. It’s always a bit of a process, not just random numbers, you know?
First thing I did was settle down and properly watch the game again. Not just following the ball, but trying to focus on individual players for stretches. What’s their movement like off the ball? Are they showing for passes? How’s their work rate when we lose possession? I keep a little notepad handy, sometimes just mental notes, other times I actually jot stuff down if something really stands out, good or bad.
Right after the final whistle, I always have those immediate gut feelings. You know, like “Blimey, he was everywhere today” or “He really struggled to get into it”. I try to capture those initial thoughts because they’re often quite telling, even if you refine them later.
My Approach to Rating
Then comes the slightly more detailed bit. I don’t go crazy with complex stats, but I might look up some simple things – pass completion for midfielders, shots for attackers, tackles for defenders. Just to check if my eye test matched what generally happened. Sometimes a player looks busy but actually gives the ball away loads, or someone looks quiet but was really efficient.
My rating system is pretty basic, usually out of 10:
- 5-6: Did okay, average performance, nothing disastrous but nothing special.
- 7: Good solid game. Did their job well, maybe had a key moment or two.
- 8: Very good. Influential performance, consistently effective.
- 9-10: Outstanding, match-winning stuff. Doesn’t happen often!
- Below 5: Had a poor game, made significant errors or offered very little.
Going Through the Players
So, I started going through them one by one. Take the goalkeeper, for example. Did he have much to do? Were the saves routine or world-class? How was his command of the area, his kicking? If he didn’t have many saves to make but dealt with everything calmly and distributed well, he’s getting a solid 6 or 7. If he made a couple of big errors, that score drops fast.
Then maybe a defender. Were they solid in the tackle? Good positioning? Did they get caught out? Did they contribute going forward? For someone like Stones, I’m looking for composure on the ball as well as defensive duties. If he kept it simple, made interceptions, I’m happy. Maybe a 7.
Midfield is always tough. You’ve got different roles. Was Rice breaking up play effectively? Was Bellingham driving forward and creating chances? Sometimes a midfielder does loads of unseen work, the dirty work, so you have to appreciate that too. It’s about effectiveness in their specific role. Bellingham might look flashy, but did he lose the ball cheaply leading to danger? That affects the score.
Upfront, it seems easier but isn’t always. Kane might not touch the ball much, but did he link play well? Did his movement create space? Did he take his one chance? Saka or Foden – were they direct? Did they beat their man? What was their final ball like? Consistency throughout the 90 minutes matters too, not just flashes.
Final Thoughts
You also have to factor in the context. Who were we playing? Was it a high-pressure knockout game or a routine qualifier? Did a player have to adapt to a slightly different position? How did the substitutes impact things when they came on?
So yeah, I go through all that, player by player, looking back at my notes and the key moments. Try to be fair and consistent with the scale I set out. It’s subjective, of course! Two people can watch the same game and come up with different ratings. But that’s my process – watch closely, reflect, check a few basics, consider the context, and then put a number on it. It takes a bit of time, but I feel it gives a fairer picture than just reacting wildly after the match ends.
