2007-2008 Matchday Player Ratings

[MDGoonah41]

We're certainly overthinking it. As I said, 1-10 is too vague, but I can certainly see how 1-5 is too restrictive. I guess as long as everyone is using the 1-10 system, which it seems like most are, it will be as accurate as possible. I posted the ratings from the Fulham match in the Fulham thread, and it lined up pretty well with the consensus ratings.

 

[DC Gunner]

We're certainly overthinking it. As I said, 1-10 is too vague, but I can certainly see how 1-5 is too restrictive. I guess as long as everyone is using the 1-10 system, which it seems like most are, it will be as accurate as possible. I posted the ratings from the Fulham match in the Fulham thread, and it lined up pretty well with the consensus ratings.

Will you still be doing a periodical trend as well as an overall one !?

That would be interesting to see

 

[illmatik]

Good idea MDGoonah, I like it, unlike some of the others, it's alot better than the stupid 10 point system as I tend to agree that it is too vague. I'm also amazed at the harsh criticism your getting here, but I'm all in for your idea

 

[kamikaze80]

1-5 can work cos even on the 1-10 scale, most people stay in the 4-9 range. so not really that big of a difference.

i personally dont see the point of this, but if you want to do it, youre more than welcome!

 

[kamikaze80]

I would hate for a "blessed" rating system on a large fan site to provide something quantifiable that could be reported in the media. This would lead to a vicious cycle of villification.

perhaps you have an overinflated sense of this forum's importance??

 

[MDGoonah41]

We're certainly overthinking it. As I said, 1-10 is too vague, but I can certainly see how 1-5 is too restrictive. I guess as long as everyone is using the 1-10 system, which it seems like most are, it will be as accurate as possible. I posted the ratings from the Fulham match in the Fulham thread, and it lined up pretty well with the consensus ratings.

Will you still be doing a periodical trend as well as an overall one !?

That would be interesting to see

Sure. 13 people voted in the Fulham thread, giving actual numeric ratings. It took me maybe 15 minutes to copy the info down. I use Microsoft Excel, I input formulas and it does all the hard work for me. It won't be hard or time consuming. I'll keep track of it and post updates every 3 or 4 matches, and then like monthly recaps or something like that.

 

[hujja]

Why don't we stick our ratings in the matchday threads themselves?

That way we can give our analysis as well as our ratings without having people flip between threads. It'll work better at avoiding posters having to justify their ratings.

Basically if you want to post your analysis and player ratings, do it in the same post.

 

[DC Gunner]

We're certainly overthinking it. As I said, 1-10 is too vague, but I can certainly see how 1-5 is too restrictive. I guess as long as everyone is using the 1-10 system, which it seems like most are, it will be as accurate as possible. I posted the ratings from the Fulham match in the Fulham thread, and it lined up pretty well with the consensus ratings.

Will you still be doing a periodical trend as well as an overall one !?

That would be interesting to see

Sure. 13 people voted in the Fulham thread, giving actual numeric ratings. It took me maybe 15 minutes to copy the info down. I use Microsoft Excel, I input formulas and it does all the hard work for me. It won't be hard or time consuming. I'll keep track of it and post updates every 3 or 4 matches, and then like monthly recaps or something like that.

Good stuff.

If you want it to be standardized, I would recommend taking entries that accounted for the starting 11 @ the minimum

 

[banduan]

Okay screw all of that then I propose we do ratings through the sublime medium of the smiley.

Haha what a joke
Nice try son
Oh noes, they crocked you
Whoa, didn't know you could do that
:shock: Cor blimey that was sumthing
:? What are you doing playing for Arsenal?
8) Dis all cool, cat, all cool
Oh you have to be kidding me
:x Get the fish out of my Arsenal team you n****
Cheeky b*****
ops: He's so dreamy
:cry: I feel for ya son I really do
:evil: no more of that, son
:twisted: yaone mean cat ya know?
:roll: yeah, another missed sitter
:wink: greta goal mate- you didn't mean to do that did ya?
:bash please die
:| yes, umm... next please,
:respect take a bow son, take a bow
:thumbdown no mate, not good
:thumbup it's all good, mate!
:woot YEAH BABY YEAH
:whistling He dived? Naah he tripped on a piece of turf. Didn't mean for the penalty. But hey we'll take that anyway
:bounce Look! I am a headless chicken!
h34r missing ninja appears to score goal! NINJA DISAPPEAR!
unk you're our next Ljungberg, son

This makes for incredibly short ratings as the message is in the smiley.

Eg:

Arsenal vs Fulham

Lemon :evil: , Clichy , Bill , Toure , LaSagna 8) , Tom :evil: , Flamini , Cesc h34r , Eboue :bounce , Hleb :shock: , RVP h34r , Walcott :| , Bendtner

 

[illmatik]

Rosicky deserves way better than that evil face

 

[banduan]

Okay a bit harsh on Tom but he did piss me off a lot that game. Probly deserves a :roll:

 

[Lukazan]

 

[Clrnc]

nice idea, but faces is too vague i think. maybe we can standandise the format for ratings?

like comments, rating, player names for all user's rating the same

 

[USArsenal]

nice idea, but faces is too vague i think. maybe we can standandise the format for ratings?

like comments, rating, player names for all user's rating the same

mate, his post was a joke....

 

[illmatik]

 

[banduan]

But you have to admit, it tells you alot in 2 lines eh? I think I'll do all my ratings that way from now on.

 

[ronitc]

Just because people don't often rate players 1 or 10 doesn't mean you need to contract the rating scale since there is always the possibility that a player will have an absolute shambolic performance or a completely stellar one.

Also, for me 6 is an average rating not 5. 6 would be the rating I give to a player that did his job, nothing more and nothing less. Or alternatively 6 would be a rating I would give a player that had a v. good ( 8 ) game but made a major error.

An example of a 1 or 2 rated performance would be Song against Fulham last season. An example of a 10 rated performance would be Henry's hattrick against Liverpool in the 4-2 game.

You also have to consider whether to rate a player based on what he is capable of or on a standardised scale. Cesc could have a relatively poor game and be rated a 5 or 6 but if Randall had the exact same performance he might be given a 7 or 8 by some just because of the level of expectation.

 

[MDGoonah41]

I hear ya. Again, this is the reason I started this thread, in a nutshell.

I'm not so much interested in what the actual player is rated, more the perception of a player's performance through the eyes of different people. It's one player, his performance is what it is, but 20 different people see it different ways.

And Ronitc, you bring up a good point. Do people here rate a player on a scale in their head based on raw performance, or what they expect from a player? Is Cesc getting a 6.0 rating from someone comparable to Hleb getting a 6.0? Do you expect more from Cesc and less from Hleb?

The reason I don't think the 1-10 scale is too meaningful is because it creates a large number of outliers that can skew the overall data. Of course, you can remove outliers from a final study and still get something meaningful. I know the system here is basically 1-10, and people are comfortable with it. This is something I wanted to try and get rolling 2 months ago in terms of trying to see if we could come up with it, but as things normally happen to me, I start one project, abandon it, and move onto something else.

I'm fine with the status quo for this season, it's kind of tough to do something new once the season has already started, because it's not easy to retroactively evaluate a game that happened months ago. This is something that maybe we can work on for next season.

I like the smilies idea the best so far.

 

[gstew]

I would hate for a "blessed" rating system on a large fan site to provide something quantifiable that could be reported in the media. This would lead to a vicious cycle of villification.

perhaps you have an overinflated sense of this forum's importance??

I feel pretty confident that this forum has almost no importance except to us. But reporters are always looking for something that is easy and simple to understand. So if I am writing an article about Hleb having a tough time, I am going to look for stuff to back this position up. Fans providing a quantifiable representation of their feelings is exactly the type of stuff reporters look for.

 

[Biggus]

Brilliant Banduan :thumbup In the words of Mr Burns "I know what I hate, and I don't hate that."

I 'm with Stuart, pouring over numbers is too much like school or hard work.....serious trainspotting territory.