Match Ratings Boro 2 -1 Arsenal

[Christofaux]

and they dont count even when they do..

but... none of these ratings really count.

 

[Biggus]

very few people actually give 0's... and they dont count even when they do.. (like 11's and 12's which i have seen now and again are not used)...

5 is average. Everybody deserves at least a 1 for bothering to show up..... :wink:
Having said that- I was honestly surprised when the first I heard of Eduardo was when he was dragged at half time.....Is this a record for Wenger for an unforced substitution?

Mak tha Don- How can you give Eduardo twice as much than Gilberto or Ade when by your admittance he 'wasn't really in the game'?

 

[Macho]

Ratings are bullshit, hence why Ive ever done one since I was new here.
People just pick their favourite players give them some stupid score, and everyone else gets 2 or 3 (or minus scores in the lobby).
I guarantee if Persie had played and we had the same result, he would have had a 6.
I didn't read this thread but I know somebody here gave Bendtner a 6.
I dunno how any could make out any difference in performance between our players in the Middlesborough match.

 

[giuliob]

I guess it's just a fun thing, not to be taken too seriously, although around here some people get very upset if a rating is out of the range of most posters ..........Most of the time they just show how everyone views a particular player differently...Or the game...What comes through sometimes is the absolute bias and the fanaticism.......Actually, it's quite comical when you look at the disparity among posters......Go figure.......

PS .....5 is average........The Gospel according to Biggus.....One of God's spokesmen at A-M..................

 

[Dragon181]

Ok, so I guess my ratings are a little less orthodox. I use the whole game's performance to set my standard. In a game where the players performed relatively well, the average would be a 6, with players playing well getting a 7, and players playing really well getting over. In a game the players bomb, the average would be a 5. I don't believe in 1s, 2s, 3s, because I don't think any player I've seen merits those numbers, and watching any performance, that would be too extreme.

I like to think of my ratings as kind of a series of longs and shorts (stocks, that is). Using the average as a parameter, players have a more unlimited upside and capped downside. And I rationalize this by saying that most players have a handful of bad plays or moments during a game, but more often than not, they have more 'good' moments that are unspectacular, or not very important, so they can't be so bad as to get a 1, 2, or 3. But if they have many spectacular or important moments/plays, they deserve a much higher rating than average.

And on the subject of favoritism and bias, I agree with Psycho that there is a certain level of bias and favoritism for certain players from certain posters, but I try (and probably fail) to look at things objectively and rate players for their game. For example, I don't really like Eboue's attitude, but his play has been relatively good, although pretty bad yesterday. I though Al has been playing really well for most games, but the Sevilla game and the Boro game were exceptions. Etc.

Usually you can see how a poster's bias comes from by looking at their ratings from a period of time. But I find it refreshing that some here are quite objective (although I might disagree with their ratings) and don't rate with knee-jerk reactions but using the whole game's events as a parameter.

 

[sesquioxide]

Ratings are bullshit, hence why Ive ever done one since I was new here.
People just pick their favourite players give them some stupid score, and everyone else gets 2 or 3 (or minus scores in the lobby).
I guarantee if Persie had played and we had the same result, he would have had a 6.
I didn't read this thread but I know somebody here gave Bendtner a 6.
I dunno how any could make out any difference in performance between our players in the Middlesborough match.

Now that's a briliant observation.

 

[Biggus]

I guess it's just a fun thing, not to be taken too seriously, although around here some people get very upset if a rating is out of the range of most posters ..........Most of the time they just show how everyone views a particular player differently...Or the game...What comes through sometimes is the absolute bias and the fanaticism.......Actually, it's quite comical when you look at the disparity among posters......Go figure.......

PS .....5 is average........The Gospel according to Biggus.....One of God's spokesmen at A-M..................

I am speaking ex cathedra on this Mags. 0 is the minimum, 10 is the maximum, 5 is half way, 6 a little above...do you see how that works? :wink:

But you are free to disagree with me if you want. I however agree with you, It is a fun thing, don't get angry over a matter of opinion, we're all Arsechums here.

 

[dutchMasta]

I think papers/sky sports use 6 as the average, and a scale of 4-10, with the odd 2 or 3 for extremely bad performances, maybe lower. Before I'd thought of doing my own ratings, I'd already gotten used to that system.

Obviously though, if you're taking it literally, 5 would be the average from 0-10, which it seems several people here are insistent on.