Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Brenfox

Sunderland player ratings

By Brenfox, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

fleckneymike

fleckneymike

Posted
Posted

Next he will wanting to know what they ate, the type of boots they were wearing, underwear preferences lol:ph34r:

I think you'll find I want completely the opposite. I believed (incorrectly) that the system was based on a scale whereby a score of 10 equated world class, it is your system which has introduced a myriad of variables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbelladave

marbelladave

Posted
Posted

But does it? For those who didn't attend it's almost completely useless because all scores are relative. If however there was an accepted norm or control score then you could accurately judge a performance otherwise they become completely arbitrary numbers.

For example one person has rated Waghorn 3 whilst another has rated them 7. That is a fairly sizeable margin of error.

Ahhhhh......... Relativity....... :thumbup:

I feel another dissertation in quantum physics coming on....... ;)

Though strictly speaking, 'General Relativity' is not really a part of quantum theory, well sometimes it is but mostly it isn't...... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Simmo86

Simmo86

Posted
Posted

But does it? For those who didn't attend it's almost completely useless because all scores are relative. If however there was an accepted norm or control score then you could accurately judge a performance otherwise they become completely arbitrary numbers.

For example one person has rated Waghorn 3 whilst another has rated them 7. That is a fairly sizeable margin of error.

But then don't you just look at what the general score for Waghorn is to see how he played. If five people give Waghorn 4's and one gives him a 7, then you can generally disregard that 7 as the person giving the rating is either blind or stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Milton Keynes Fox

Milton Keynes Fox

Posted
Posted

Anyone not giving Drinkwater 9's is stupid, he was unreal today....and to the people that gave 9's, you read the game well.

I'm not a big fan like of Danns and Beckford but defensive he was sound, and his through balls and tempo was brilliant, there was one moment of brilliance where he overthe top through balled it and it had perfect weight and distance, unreal!

Schmeichel-8

De Laet-7 Nothing really to comment on

Morgan-8 Looked good especially against some quick strikers

Moore-7

Konchesky-7

Marshall-8

Drinkwater-9

James-7

Dyer-6

Beckford-7

Vardy-7

Nugent-6

Waghorn-6

Parkes- Goal but didn't really watch him :P

Knockaeet-9

Danns-7

King-5

Schlupp-6

Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxsake

foxsake

Posted
Posted

Ahhhhh......... Relativity....... :thumbup:

I feel another dissertation in quantum physics coming on....... ;)

Though strictly speaking, 'General Relativity' is not really a part of quantum theory, well sometimes it is but mostly it isn't...... :P

I'm getting a front row seat for this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fleckneymike

fleckneymike

Posted
Posted

But then don't you just look at what the general score for Waghorn is to see how he played. If five people give Waghorn 4's and one gives him a 7, then you can generally disregard that 7 as the person giving the rating is either blind or stupid.

But what if the 5 people giving him a 4 rated all the other players differently from the rest of the raters yet the man scoring a 7 rated the rest of the team in line with the mean score?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eddylcfc

eddylcfc

Posted
Posted

But does it? For those who didn't attend it's almost completely useless because all scores are relative. If however there was an accepted norm or control score then you could accurately judge a performance otherwise they become completely arbitrary numbers.

For example one person has rated Waghorn 3 whilst another has rated them 7. That is a fairly sizeable margin of error.

Your a penis.. Stop going on you fool. For people like me, who didn't attend, it gives an idea of who played well and who didn't, end of story. Stop trying to make yourself look like a genius.. Chances are, your really not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ithuriel

ithuriel

Posted
Posted

I think you'll find I want completely the opposite. I believed (incorrectly) that the system was based on a scale whereby a score of 10 equated world class, it is your system which has introduced a myriad of variables.

Well, now either you are a tedious troll or you are genuinely baffled by a simple ratings system.

If you are baffled then it is pointless trying to explain further.

If you are trolling then it is pointless to continue this tedium.

Either way i think i will just add you to my ignore list :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fleckneymike

fleckneymike

Posted
Posted

Your a penis.. Stop going on you fool. For people like me, who didn't attend, it gives an idea of who played well and who didn't, end of story. Stop trying to make yourself look like a genius.. Chances are, your really not!

I hardly think discussing a scale of 1-10 is a way to make myself appear a genius, I am clearly far from a genius as I was confused by a scale of 1-10.

I still believe it's not much use to non attenders due to the highlighted margin of error in today's scores. After all how well did Waghorn play? A 3 or a 7?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Simmo86

Simmo86

Posted
Posted

But what if the 5 people giving him a 4 rated all the other players differently from the rest of the raters yet the man scoring a 7 rated the rest of the team in line with the mean score?

lol

I'm not getting involved in Mean, Mode, Median and Range. Far to complicated for most on here.

Just find a poster who you think talks an ounce of sense and follow their ratings throughout the year! :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaspa

Jaspa

Posted
Posted

I hardly think discussing a scale of 1-10 is a way to make myself appear a genius, I am clearly far from a genius as I was confused by a scale of 1-10.

I still believe it's not much use to non attenders due to the highlighted margin of error in today's scores. After all how well did Waghorn play? A 3 or a 7?

Just say 5 :rolleyes:

Will be watching his performances very closely this season

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluetintedspecs

Bluetintedspecs

Posted
Posted

Just been watching some of the diving on the BBC.

We should introduce a 'degree of difficulty' factor into our player ratings.

I would suggest Sunderland, as a Premier League side as about 1.6....... :thumbup:

Agree, also feel their ought to be something for artistic impression like in synchronised swimming and gymnastics floor and not forgetting and finally to balance out the differing opinions we could have an Analometer that works similar to the Duckworth Lewis system :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fleckneymike

fleckneymike

Posted
Posted

Well, now either you are a tedious troll or you are genuinely baffled by a simple ratings system.

If you are baffled then it is pointless trying to explain further.

If you are trolling then it is pointless to continue this tedium.

Either way i think i will just add you to my ignore list :thumbup:

I can assure you I am not a troll, I am merely someone baffled by the apparently flawed scoring system being employed.

I may be incorrect but I seem to recall that there was once a rating site/page on here which aggregated all the votes and produced scores for players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eddylcfc

eddylcfc

Posted
Posted

I hardly think discussing a scale of 1-10 is a way to make myself appear a genius, I am clearly far from a genius as I was confused by a scale of 1-10.

I still believe it's not much use to non attenders due to the highlighted margin of error in today's scores. After all how well did Waghorn play? A 3 or a 7?

In most posts, the correlation of ratings, was good enough for me to establish who had played well and who hadn't. I think most people who don't look to deeply into it would agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites
harryboi72

harryboi72

Posted
Posted

I hardly think discussing a scale of 1-10 is a way to make myself appear a genius, I am clearly far from a genius as I was confused by a scale of 1-10.

I still believe it's not much use to non attenders due to the highlighted margin of error in today's scores. After all how well did Waghorn play? A 3 or a 7?

if you dont like the way that the players are rated then dont bother reading them, nobody else complains and everyone else finds them helpful if they did not attend the game,so either shut up complaining about the system or dont read the topic anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eddylcfc

eddylcfc

Posted
Posted

if you dont like the way that the players are rated then dont bother reading them, nobody else complains and everyone else finds them helpful if they did not attend the game,so either shut up complaining about the system or dont read the topic anymore

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fleckneymike

fleckneymike

Posted
Posted

if you dont like the way that the players are rated then dont bother reading them, nobody else complains and everyone else finds them helpful if they did not attend the game,so either shut up complaining about the system or dont read the topic anymore

In my defence I wasn't aware what the system was, I asked and was greeted with an answer I found puzzling so I sought further clarity. I shan't enrage you further with my innocent enquiries but neither shall I refer to you as 'Captain My Captain'

http://youtu.be/wOENu0fK0uM

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluetintedspecs

Bluetintedspecs

Posted
Posted

In my defence I wasn't aware what the system was, I asked and was greeted with an answer I found puzzling so I sought further clarity. I shan't enrage you further with my innocent enquiries.

Mike unfortunatelys you come across as someone that can start a row in an empty room! And in truth very very anal maybe you might try a chill pill and as my Dear old gran used to say " stop wanting to know the ins and outs of Megs arse" :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrentFox

TrentFox

Posted
Posted

I hardly think discussing a scale of 1-10 is a way to make myself appear a genius, I am clearly far from a genius as I was confused by a scale of 1-10.

I still believe it's not much use to non attenders due to the highlighted margin of error in today's scores. After all how well did Waghorn play? A 3 or a 7?

So if you asked 30 people on here what their favourite colour is, and got 30 different answers, what would you conclude ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrentFox

TrentFox

Posted
Posted

Mike unfortunatelys you come across as someone that can start a row in an empty room! And in truth very very anal maybe you might try a chill pill and as my Dear old gran used to say " stop wanting to know the ins and outs of Megs arse" :D

I have to say that if that's Meg Ryan you're talking about, I, for one, would be particularly keen to know as much detail about that as you have at your disposal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...