Leeds United vs Arsenal Match Ratings

[Kraig]

Szczesny - 7

Sagna - 9
Djourou - 6
Koscielny - 8
Gibbs - 7

Song - 8
Denilson - 6
Nasri - 9 (MOTM)

Arshavin - 5
Chamakh - 6.5
Bendtner - 5

Didn't think Gibbs had a bad game at all. It was one of his better performances this season in my opinion.

swap denilson to a 5 and sammi to an 8 and id agree with the rest!

 

[ricky1985]

I thought Nasri was very impressive myself. Looked a class above everyone out on the pitch, well the attacking players anyway, since Mr. Backary Sagna was on the pitch, too.

 

[fabo]

Nasri 9? Gave alot of balls away, even more than Arshavin yet nobody realised.

I agree here, I remember thinking at half-time that Nasri had been pretty average bar the goal.....gave away some uncharacteristic passes.

But the goal was superb - highlights one major difference between Nasri and Rosicky when he fills in at AM. Rosicky would rarely ever try to make a run in behind a defence and tbh I wouldn't back most of our strikers to stick that one away.....but Nasri has the taste for goals now, just like Cesc.

Had a look at a Leeds forum yesterday and one poster said he had watched the best player in the PL in Nasri. So they were obviously impressed.

 

[outlaw_member]

I like 1-5 ratings. Much more meaningful. Whats the difference between a 7 and an 8? A 3 and a 4?

1 = awful
2 = below average
3 = average
4 = above average
5 = awesome

!

I've just come across a system employed by Italian newspapers for post match football ratings. What was personally interesting is just how much it mirrored my very own system. Like it dictates below, I've never given a 1, 2 or 10 rating, only ever awarded a 9 twice over the past two years, whilst the large majority have ranged between 5 and 7.

Individual marks:

1,2. Never given.

3. Very rarely given. Unbelievably bad.

4. Occasionally awarded. There are a number of possible cases here. First, a truly terrible performance, contributing personally to a team's defeat. Second, being sent off, idiotically. Third, a 4 is sometimes given for 'moral' reasons - for a bad foul, a dive, an insult, a pathetic show of petulance.

5. Often given. This is a classic mark of 'non sufficiency' - not good enough. Usually given, simply, for a mediocre performance. Below average.

5.5. As above but slightly better. Just less than good enough.

6. Sufficient. A good, normal, performance. Sometimes journalists will use scholastic variations on the '6' theme as in 6 meno - 6 minus - somewhere between 5.5 and 6.

6.5. Good. This is a very good mark, which most players would be very happy with. The average of the very best players at the end of a long season usually oscillates around the 6.8 mark.

7. Excellent. Close to outstanding. A fairly rare mark.

8. Very rare. Decisive for a victory - perhaps in an important game - a hat-trick, a penalty save, etc., etc.

9. Extremely rare. Bordering on the historic.

10. Never given.

Now no-one can question my ratings!

 

[yuvken]

3, 4.
5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7.
8, 9.

where 3 and 9 are not really used, and even 4 and 8 are very exceptional.

you don't notice that this is simply a different calibrating, with a fish-eye look at 5 to 7
and all the rest is blurry?
It can be used, but why pretend it's common sense to do that?
I personally like the moderate approach (I gave a 10 only one time, never the really low ones)
but I do see a point in being able to relate to nuances beyond the center of the spectrum, and don't really see why we need to act as if all players operate in the middle of a linear scale - between 5 to 7 as you say. There is a need to say "cesc and VP were 8.5" (fine by me if it's 8, etc.), and then Jack (or song or others if you liked them) did an 8 or a 7.5. and a poor performance is a 4, and we see quite a bit of that.
Your own ratings lately make me wonder - I know you follow the games, and I know you know something about it ( :wink: ) - but then why be so rough? your last one, for instance, made me think - why do you bother at all? your system flattens everything, and the whole idea about ratings is to be able to give a proper account, including details. But maybe it's just me.
For what it's worth, having said all that, I still prefer your logic to the cheap splashing of 9's and 3's.

 

[Smudeagle]

We should create house rules for ratings because at the moment match ratings threads stink the place up. People arguing over entirely subjective and arbitrary scores. Yawn.

Either we need a standard rating system stickied, or the person who creates the thread should define 'their ratings scheme' for people to apply. Could at least mean some interesting discussion, big ****ing effort though to be fair...

 

[CandysRoom]

If someone or the team play superbly, as a tax paying, moral and decent human being i reserve the right to give them a 10

 

[Klaus Daimler]

I've just come across a system employed by Italian newspapers for post match football ratings. What was personally interesting is just how much it mirrored my very own system. Like it dictates below, I've never given a 1, 2 or 10 rating, only ever awarded a 9 twice over the past two years, whilst the large majority have ranged between 5 and 7.

Individual marks:

1,2. Never given.

3. Very rarely given. Unbelievably bad.

4. Occasionally awarded. There are a number of possible cases here. First, a truly terrible performance, contributing personally to a team's defeat. Second, being sent off, idiotically. Third, a 4 is sometimes given for 'moral' reasons - for a bad foul, a dive, an insult, a pathetic show of petulance.

5. Often given. This is a classic mark of 'non sufficiency' - not good enough. Usually given, simply, for a mediocre performance. Below average.

5.5. As above but slightly better. Just less than good enough.

6. Sufficient. A good, normal, performance. Sometimes journalists will use scholastic variations on the '6' theme as in 6 meno - 6 minus - somewhere between 5.5 and 6.

6.5. Good. This is a very good mark, which most players would be very happy with. The average of the very best players at the end of a long season usually oscillates around the 6.8 mark.

7. Excellent. Close to outstanding. A fairly rare mark.

8. Very rare. Decisive for a victory - perhaps in an important game - a hat-trick, a penalty save, etc., etc.

9. Extremely rare. Bordering on the historic.

10. Never given.

Now no-one can question my ratings!

The Gazzetta gave Montella a perfect 10 after that Rome derby six or so years ago. Apparently he's the only player to ever get it apart from Maradona.

 

[banduan]

I disagree with those Italian ratings, mostly for not giving 2s and rarely giving 9s and yet having .5 scores.

 

[outlaw_member]

3, 4.
5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7.
8, 9.

where 3 and 9 are not really used, and even 4 and 8 are very exceptional.

you don't notice that this is simply a different calibrating, with a fish-eye look at 5 to 7
and all the rest is blurry?
It can be used, but why pretend it's common sense to do that?
I personally like the moderate approach (I gave a 10 only one time, never the really low ones)
but I do see a point in being able to relate to nuances beyond the center of the spectrum, and don't really see why we need to act as if all players operate in the middle of a linear scale - between 5 to 7 as you say. There is a need to say "cesc and VP were 8.5" (fine by me if it's 8, etc.), and then Jack (or song or others if you liked them) did an 8 or a 7.5. and a poor performance is a 4, and we see quite a bit of that.
Your own ratings lately make me wonder - I know you follow the games, and I know you know something about it ( :wink: ) - but then why be so rough? your last one, for instance, made me think - why do you bother at all? your system flattens everything, and the whole idea about ratings is to be able to give a proper account, including details. But maybe it's just me.
For what it's worth, having said all that, I still prefer your logic to the cheap splashing of 9's and 3's.

I was merely using this information to defend my own method which has come in for criticism, rather than attempting to purport it as the foremost guideline that everyone ought to embrace. I think the lack of information accompanying the number can make my ratings ambiguous to someone who might not be aware of what the various numbers signify.

Klaus. You really do love Montella, don't you? : I don't believe it to be inconceivable to hand out a 10, but the number is indeed reserved for the perfect performa nce, such as that of Montella's. I've rarely ever seen such a level of performance in football, let alone at Arsenal.

 

[yuvken]

I was merely using this information to defend my own method which has come in for criticism, rather than attempting to purport it as the foremost guideline that everyone ought to embrace. I think the lack of information accompanying the number can make my ratings ambiguous to someone who might not be aware of what the various numbers signify.

Klaus. You really do love Montella, don't you? : I don't believe it to be inconceivable to hand out a 10, but the number is indeed reserved for the perfect performa nce, such as that of Montella's. I've rarely ever seen such a level of performance in football, let alone at Arsenal.

I understand that, respect that, and in a way - if that is the best way you can express yourself - I endorse it. It's just that there is a point of discussing things between different people sharing a basic agreement on terms. It's like having a conversation in the same language: the possibilities seem to be richer. But that last bit, to some extent at least, could protect your right for "originality" (a bigger variety, richer contribution). Just think of some other member reading what the others thought of the game: oh, really? how come? ah, wait. that's outlaw. alright then, it makes sense". It could work, but the more "original" twists we have, the less coherent babylon becomes - interesting, amusing, but then could totally lose it's grip when there's too much of that.

 

[The Escaped Ape]

It's subjective. People are different. There's the whole glass half empty/half full thing. The whole different meanings for different numbers thing.

I personally think that Italian system is ridiculous, where essentially everyone is scoring between 5 and 7. But what does it matter what I think? If you're here for long enough, you start to pick up within what ranges people usually mark. It also gives you a rule of thumb for judging the tone of their posts (and vice versa). A stingy marker is probably going to be quite grudging in handing out praise, I'd guess.

 

[yuvken]

Everything we say is essentially subjective, but if we make the system subjective as well, we don't really get to meet in a common, neutral, "objective" place to exchange subjective views - which is the point of this grading thing (and more or less everything we do here).
Getting to know who's what is true basically the more intimate a place is. That's how I'd see outlaw's rating and say: "ah, it's outlaw, I know" (or some of the 9 and 10 regular splashers, and react in the same way). This loses it's coherence the bigger a place is, and the reason for that is exactly why it is also not a great idea: you lose the ability to track individual idiosyncrasies, which in effect is an ability to compensate for the deviation from the rule. That rule is our common ground, the system/language/scale or what have you.
It is cool to have more freedom to express your exact truth (and in that "choosing" your system, on top of your essentially subjective take on what you see in a game, etc., is presumably a plus). It is also cool to stick with the intimate characteristics - a warmer place where we know each other, etc.
But the price we pay in that is that we advance towards a point where everything we say is meaningless.
A danger that is not adequately assessed in many cases to begin with .

 

[Klaus Daimler]

Klaus. You really do love Montella, don't you? :

Most talented italian striker I've ever seen apart from Baggio and Del Piero!

 

[The Escaped Ape]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I actually think the non-lobby bit of AM is small enough to get that rule of thumb. Apart from randoms like me who only pop up from time to time, there are a fair number of regulars who post ratings after each match who it's possible to get a feel for.

I still think it's a bit pointless to strive for a standardized system personally. Even if there is a big sticky at the top of the forum outlining what each number means (1 = sell him now, 2 = dreadful, 3 = weak, 4 = under par, 5 = fine, 6 = solid, 7 = playing well, 8 = very good, 9 = game changing, 10 = season defining), then people will just interpret those definitions differently.

Not that I don't have a lot of sympathy for what you're saying. I just don't think in reality it'd work.

 

[yuvken]

I think you understand fine, and agree with you on what's realistic, the way things are now, etc.

I just think that "subjective" and "objective" can be pulled. Go too much in the subjective direction, you're lost (and thus your little sticky example could actually help stabilize, though obviously not eliminate the subjectivity).

 

[The Escaped Ape]

Fair enough.

I'm not going to say I enjoy pulling apart the ratings, but I guess I kind of like digging into what's behind people's marks. I actually quite like Outlaw's marks in the sense that he's consistent within his own parameters. Totally removed from my own, but that's cool.