Stuliasz Posted 12 September 2005 Share Posted 12 September 2005 The results from the Sheffield Wednesday game voting are now on the web site. Go to www.player-ratings.co.uk to view them, but don't forget to come back on here to discuss the results Sheff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted 12 September 2005 Share Posted 12 September 2005 Harshest Voter davieg - 5.91 Any particular reason or did you see something the rest of us did not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 12 September 2005 Share Posted 12 September 2005 Any particular reason or did you see something the rest of us did not ? Obviously I saw it differently, I guess my feelings are that I didn't get value for money, Sheff Weds were a very poor team and by their own admission having their two main strikers out were or should have been no real threat. CL said later that despite an average performance he was happy to get the 3 points, well he didn't have to pay to go in, I don't think they all gave of their best ofr the full 90. Value wise we got about 20 minutes worth of determined football after that it was flat - not good enough for me. By SheffFox's own ratings guidelines I thought everyone was between 5-7 as in. 7 - A good performance, contributed well to the team. 6 - An average performance. Didn't do badly but could have done better. 5 - Not a good performance but did not disgrace himself. It wasn't a bad performance just decidedly average after the 2 goals. I''ll save my 8's, 9's & 10's for when I see attacking football with the oppo under the cosh 90 minutes and 3 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cisono Posted 12 September 2005 Share Posted 12 September 2005 Am I correct in thinking that Hughes got Man of the Match award for this game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scow Posted 12 September 2005 Share Posted 12 September 2005 Am I correct in thinking that Hughes got Man of the Match award for this game? Yes. It does say that on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scow Posted 12 September 2005 Share Posted 12 September 2005 Sheff, one thing I don't agree with is the ratings given by people listening on the radio. How can you rate a player without seeing them play? You're relying on the commentators view and not your own. I just don't think it serves any purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cisono Posted 12 September 2005 Share Posted 12 September 2005 Yes. It does say that on there. OK. I am a bit tired and didn't see it spellt out in BIG LETTERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuliasz Posted 12 September 2005 Author Share Posted 12 September 2005 I ought to put a page on the web site explaining why I do this as I get asked so often. I completely understand where you are coming from and totally agree with your point. The problem is that if I didn't categorise how people had voted, you would get people voting who have listened to the game, even if you ask them not to just because they want to get involved. I feel this would make the overall results more inaccurate because as you say its more the commentators view. I then still have to display the results or it makes the people who have voted who listened on the radio as though they may well not have bothered and then they may decide to pretend they went to the game and vote in that category too. I may well end up just removing it all together if there is a lot of opposition to it, and there has been a bit, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted 12 September 2005 Share Posted 12 September 2005 Sheff, one thing I don't agree with is the ratings given by people listening on the radio. How can you rate a player without seeing them play? You're relying on the commentators view and not your own. I just don't think it serves any purpose. I think it does for those of us unable to get to the game. I am also sure that it is not to be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cisono Posted 12 September 2005 Share Posted 12 September 2005 Sheff, one thing I don't agree with is the ratings given by people listening on the radio. How can you rate a player without seeing them play? You're relying on the commentators view and not your own. I just don't think it serves any purpose. You could possibly have two categories of ratings then? All that is needed is asking the person giving the rating whether they watched the match or listened on the radio. The scores could then be assembled separately (automatically) ... [i'm not offering to do any work ] Anyway, this solution seems to me the best of both cakes ehm worlds... or having the cherry and the cake ... or is it the icing on the cake? [cake thread interfering here ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuliasz Posted 12 September 2005 Author Share Posted 12 September 2005 Have you ever actually looked at the site Cisono? this is exactly what it does! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scow Posted 12 September 2005 Share Posted 12 September 2005 I ought to put a page on the web site explaining why I do this as I get asked so often. I completely understand where you are coming from and totally agree with your point. The problem is that if I didn't categorise how people had voted, you would get people voting who have listened to the game, even if you ask them not to just because they want to get involved. I feel this would make the overall results more inaccurate because as you say its more the commentators view. I then still have to display the results or it makes the people who have voted who listened on the radio as though they may well not have bothered and then they may decide to pretend they went to the game and vote in that category too. I may well end up just removing it all together if there is a lot of opposition to it, and there has been a bit, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from. I understand what you're saying. I imagine if you were to exclude that option, then you'd still get some people voting even if they haven't gone to the game. That probably happens anyway, with people submitting their votes and claiming they have gone to the game, although it is likely to be a very small minority. As I suggested a while back, maybe registering could be the way forward, but it will obviously be difficult to implement that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cisono Posted 12 September 2005 Share Posted 12 September 2005 Have you ever actually looked at the site Cisono? this is exactly what it does! Of course I have looked at it... I have also been working lots for the last few days though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cisono Posted 12 September 2005 Share Posted 12 September 2005 Let me explain, personally, I would have this info marked more clearly on the front page. I don't like having to look for it. Perhaps we just have different layout tastes... Still a good site, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuliasz Posted 13 September 2005 Author Share Posted 13 September 2005 Sorry I think we have crossed wires here somewhere, what exactly would you like to be marked on the front page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anish Posted 13 September 2005 Share Posted 13 September 2005 Sheff, one thing I don't agree with is the ratings given by people listening on the radio. How can you rate a player without seeing them play? You're relying on the commentators view and not your own. I just don't think it serves any purpose. Completely agree. That's why I never vote if I listen on the radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.