Rules of Ratings

[Stuliasz]

After a bit of debate on the subject, I feel as though I should try and clarify how players should be rated after each match. Feel free to say if you think I am wrong, but I think this is a fair way of doing it.

10 - Contender for performance of the season. A match-winning performance in every sense of the word, the inspiration of the team.

9 – An excellent performance by the player. Stood out above everyone else on the pitch.

8 – A very good performance indeed. Offered a huge lot to the team.

7 – A good performance by the player. Did well.

6 – Was OK. A pretty average performance. Nothing out of the ordinary.

5 – Less than average. Not the best performance the player has given by any means. Disappointing.

4 – Quite a poor performance. Did not get involved and not much seemed to go his way.

3 – An all round poor performance. Let the team down on numerous occasions and did not look interested.

2 – A woeful performance. Nothing seemed to go right for the player at all and frustrated his team mates and the fans.

1 – No adjective can describe how bad this player was. Did not complete a single pass, header, shot on target and couldn’t defend. (PLEASE ONLY USE THIS IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY).

Please only use the extremes when absolutely necessary. Many people have been letting their frustrations get the better of them and giving 1’s when the player involved has at least completed a few passes and done some things right.

Feel free to argue if you feel these descriptions of ratings are unfair.

[davieG]

After a bit of debate on the subject, I feel as though I should try and clarify how players should be rated after each match. Feel free to say if you think I am wrong, but I think this is a fair way of doing it.

10 - Contender for performance of the season. A match-winning performance in every sense of the word, the inspiration of the team.

9 – An excellent performance by the player. Stood out above everyone else on the pitch.

8 – A very good performance indeed. Offered a huge lot to the team.

7 – A good performance by the player. Did well.

6 – Was OK. A pretty average performance. Nothing out of the ordinary.

5 – Less than average. Not the best performance the player has given by any means. Disappointing.

4 – Quite a poor performance. Did not get involved and not much seemed to go his way.

3 – An all round poor performance. Let the team down on numerous occasions and did not look interested.

2 – A woeful performance. Nothing seemed to go right for the player at all and frustrated his team mates and the fans.

1 – No adjective can describe how bad this player was. Did not complete a single pass, header, shot on target and couldn’t defend. (PLEASE ONLY USE THIS IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY).

Please only use the extremes when absolutely necessary. Many people have been letting their frustrations get the better of them and giving 1’s when the player involved has at least completed a few passes and done some things right.

Feel free to argue if you feel these descriptions of ratings are unfair.

41609[/snapback]

Good work Sheffield, we can all debate the details and never come to a conclusion so I'm quite happy to go along with your proposals. I would add one caveat, that players should be judged against their perceived ability e.g. judgement of say Benjamin against Williams should take into account their natural ability.

Finally if everyone agrees with your proposal can you put it at the front of the match ratings thread each time so that people are continually reminded of the scoring structure.

[Scow]

I think it's a fair scoring system. The problem lies where after an extremely bad/good performance, people will go OTT, that's inevitable and I don't think you can eradicate that...

[Cobbo]

I think it's a fair scoring system. The problem lies where after an extremely bad/good performance, people will go OTT, that's inevitable and I don't think you can eradicate that...

41616[/snapback]

Mentioning no names.

Mark Maher.

Blake - 1

[Hullfox]

After a bit of debate on the subject, I feel as though I should try and clarify how players should be rated after each match. Feel free to say if you think I am wrong, but I think this is a fair way of doing it.

10 - Contender for performance of the season. A match-winning performance in every sense of the word, the inspiration of the team.

9 – An excellent performance by the player. Stood out above everyone else on the pitch.

8 – A very good performance indeed. Offered a huge lot to the team.

7 – A good performance by the player. Did well.

6 – Was OK. A pretty average performance. Nothing out of the ordinary.

5 – Less than average. Not the best performance the player has given by any means. Disappointing.

4 – Quite a poor performance. Did not get involved and not much seemed to go his way.

3 – An all round poor performance. Let the team down on numerous occasions and did not look interested.

2 – A woeful performance. Nothing seemed to go right for the player at all and frustrated his team mates and the fans.

1 – No adjective can describe how bad this player was. Did not complete a single pass, header, shot on target and couldn’t defend. (PLEASE ONLY USE THIS IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY).

Please only use the extremes when absolutely necessary. Many people have been letting their frustrations get the better of them and giving 1’s when the player involved has at least completed a few passes and done some things right.

Feel free to argue if you feel these descriptions of ratings are unfair.

41609[/snapback]

Good work Sheffield, we can all debate the details and never come to a conclusion so I'm quite happy to go along with your proposals. I would add one caveat, that players should be judged against their perceived ability e.g. judgement of say Benjamin against Williams should take into account their natural ability.

Finally if everyone agrees with your proposal can you put it at the front of the match ratings thread each time so that people are continually reminded of the scoring structure.

41612[/snapback]

Disagree with you there davieg.

Who is to be the judge of perception?

For instance, Scowcroft is poor in the eyes certain people and good in others. I just think that it is hard enough getting people to vote sensibly from one perspective without introducing another in the form of perception which I am sure you will admit is lacking from time to time in general.

[Scow]

I think it's a fair scoring system. The problem lies where after an extremely bad/good performance, people will go OTT, that's inevitable and I don't think you can eradicate that...

41616[/snapback]

Mentioning no names.

Mark Maher.

Blake - 1

41617[/snapback]

I've never given him that rating. Lowest was a 0.

It was fully justified by the way.

[Stuliasz]

One of the first times Blake came on, he did actually fail to find a team mate on any occasion which is the only time anyone on any occasion this season deserved anywhere near a 1, but as he was only on for about 15 minutes its unfair to really give him a 1 as all players should start around midway.

[Mark]

If it's fair to give Makin and Gemmill M.O.T.M. in different newspapers on Saturday, then it's fair to give Blake, and others, a 1

[Stuliasz]

Yeh but these ratings are not from newspapers, these are from the fans. Lets try and keep it fair.

[Anish]

I don't think it's a good idea to have these rules of ratings. We all see the game differently and expect different standards from different players.

Seeing and debating other people's extreme comments makes this place more lively and fun - if we all gave Blake a 3 or Tiatto an 8 every game etc etc this place would be boring in my opinion.

[Mark]

I don't think it's a good idea to have these rules of ratings. We all see the game differently and expect different standards from different players.

Seeing and debating other people's extreme comments makes this place more lively and fun - if we all gave Blake a 3 or Tiatto an 8 every game etc etc this place would be boring in my opinion.

41701[/snapback]

Agreed, it's only ratings in the end, and so far the results have been very accurate.

[Stuliasz]

This has been debated quite passionately on 'another' forum and I probably made a mistake titling the thread rules for ratings rather than guidelines for ratings. It is only meant as a guideline for people who are unsure on how to vote, nothing more than that. The main thing I am trying to do is to stop people giving pointless ratings like 1 for everyone like people do occasionally.

[Guest]

I don't think it matters what guidelines you give. Whilst the majority of us will say gaive a player an average figure of let's say 5/10, there's bound to be someone who will rate him at 2 or 9!

You like your statistical analysis, SF, how often do individual scores fall outside 'normal' range? That would be quite interesting to find out....... <_<