Sunderland player ratings

[Bluetintedspecs]

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.

Me too Trent but was not who my gran was talking about

[TrentFox]

Why would I want to know the favourite colour of 30 people?

Why would you want to know the favourite players of the 30 people or so who respond on that thread ?

[fleckneymike]

Why would you want to know the favourite players of the 30 people or so who respond on that thread ?

Now I think you're confused. This thread wasn't created to find out someone's favourite player but rather ascertain the level of performances of the players.

[marbelladave]

I'm getting a front row seat for this!

Only worth while if you have done your homework, try 'the Invisible Man' thread, august 21st 2011.

I wouldn't bother, I wasn't using it in reference to quantum theory. If anything I was closer to the philosophical model.

General Relativity though is quite useful in this respect, both in physical terms (position of the observer for example) and the philosophical (the preconceptions of the observer).

I explains perfectly why, on the odd occasion that I do a rating, Wellens never gets more than a 4......

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

Excellent idea.......

I am particularly looking forward to the part after the game where you have to explain to (Big) Wes Morgan why his marks for artistic impression were not a 'perfect' 10.......

[TrentFox]

Now I think you're confused. This thread wasn't created to find out someone's favourite player but rather ascertain the level of performances of the players.

Aaah ! I think I get it ... you think the two things are unrelated ??

[fleckneymike]

Aaah ! I think I get it ... you think the two things are unrelated ??

So are you saying the ratings are swayed by the individual voters inherent bias towards certain players thus creating a set of completely unreliable results?

[TrentFox]

So are you saying the ratings are swayed by the individual voters inherent bias towards certain players thus creating a set of completely unreliable results?

I think a more pertinent question is "do you"? But since you ask - yes, to a degree. None of us actually record what happens in life. We pick up light reflecting off of objects, translate that light based on our past experiences / conditioning and store our own unique version of the 'truth'. But when 20 posters tell you that Drinkwater had a good game ........ or when 20 posters say Vardy looks quick ........ or 20 posters tell you Knockaert looks full of tricks .......... well, maybe the Wisdom of Crowds is correct after all.

[fleckneymike]

I think a more pertinent question is "do you"? But since you ask - yes, to a degree. None of us actually record what happens in life. We pick up light reflecting off of objects, translate that light based on our past experiences / conditioning and store our own unique version of the 'truth'. But when 20 posters tell you that Drinkwater had a good game ........ or when 20 posters say Vardy looks quick ........ or 20 posters tell you Knockaert looks full of tricks .......... well, maybe the Wisdom of Crowds is correct after all.

That's actually argumentum ad populum. Wisdom of crowds is something completely different.

[marbelladave]

So are you saying the ratings are swayed by the individual voters inherent bias towards certain players thus creating a set of completely unreliable results?

Thats General Relativity for you.........

[fleckneymike]

Thats General Relativity for you.........

No it isn't.

[TrentFox]

That's actually argumentum ad populum. Wisdom of crowds is something completely different.

What's "populist" about how human perception works ? And I would have thought the 'aggregation of information' concept is exactly what I've just described. But I've no doubt you have your own thoughts on that. Shall enjoy considering them in the morning.

[marbelladave]

That's actually argumentum ad populum. Wisdom of crowds is something completely different.

Now this is getting interesting, argumentum ad populum I understand, though it is outside my usual area of expertise.

Wisdom of crowds though........

Is that like 'Ask the audience'........

[Vlad the Fox]

So if you asked 30 people on here what their favourite colour is, and got 30 different answers, what would you conclude ?

I reckon it's blue. It is mine.

I've not gone over everybody's head have I?

[TrentFox]

Now this is getting interesting, argumentum ad populum I understand, though it is outside my usual area of expertise.

Wisdom of crowds though........

Is that like 'Ask the audience'........

Kind of. Ask the audience is statistically the most likely route to the correct answer on 'Who Wants To Be A Rich Bastard', I believe. It tries to factor in the aggregation of thinking, whilst allowing for the fact that many of those thoughts are not independent, but heavily influenced by the responses of one or two .. who may not necessarily be correct in their assumptions. A bit like any FT thread !!!! At which point the options are continuing this - which is actually quite interesting, or shagging the missus. Night !!

Actually - stuff it - she can wait ten seconds longer ! The Millionaire thing is a good example as each person makes their own independent decision, therefore not influenced by or influencing anyone else. Unlike when you decide to get your bin out on the wwrong day, just because the neighbour has done so + whole street makes a decision based on what the neighbour did ... who might be off his face on crack !!!

[fleckneymike]

Now this is getting interesting, argumentum ad populum I understand, though it is outside my usual area of expertise.

Wisdom of crowds though........

Is that like 'Ask the audience'........

In simple terms yes. The concept has been misappropriated and confused with argumentum ad populum. Wisdom of crowds requires there to be a correct answer in order for the crowd to display their wisdom as statistically if you have a choice of 4 answers those who don't know the answer will be fairly evenly spread across the answers whereas the experts in the 'crowd' will create a spike in the results which will invariably give you the correct answer.

I have incredibly over simplified the theory but I'm sure if we wait 2 minutes for TrentFox to finish then he might offer a more comprehensive response.

[Charl91]

So are you saying the ratings are swayed by the individual voters inherent bias towards certain players thus creating a set of completely unreliable results?

Of course the results aren't going to particularly reliable - the marks are based on personal opinion, which varies greatly in football due to a number of factors. There's always going to be a wide array of opinions, so even if we did have some unified rating system it isn't neccesarily going to yield accurate results (and unless we were going to make a data base from all these statistics, then probably a waste of time). It's only meant to be a general gauge of whether a player/players performed well or not in certain peoples eyes, nothing more - something which is generally easy to discern from peoples posts, especially as they tend to leave comments by the ratings.

Regardless, I also disagree with your idea that a rating of 10 shouldn't be given anyway. Firstly, I find that the biggest difference between most "World class" (and I hate that word anyway, because it's so subjective) players and championship players is consistency. A "world class" player can pull of top performances on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean that a lesser player is not capable of putting out a performance that even a great player would be proud of - it just means it's very unlikely.

Secondly, we know none of these players are Messi or Ronaldo, or ever likely to be of a similar skill level. Surely we should be rating the players on their own merits and capabilities? What's the point in having a rating system that goes to 10 if the upper tiers of ratings are not allowed to be used? For me, a rating of 10 would be the best possible performance that you could reasonably expect from the player in question - we're not judging them by the standards of the 1970 Brazil team after all.

[marbelladave]

Kind of. Ask the audience is statistically the most likely route to the correct answer on 'Who Wants To Be A Rich Bastard', I believe. It tries to factor in the aggregation of thinking, whilst allowing for the fact that many of those thoughts are not independent, but heavily influenced by the responses of one or two .. who may not necessarily be correct in their assumptions. A bit like any FT thread !!!! At which point the options are continuing this - which is actually quite interesting, or shagging the missus. Night !!

Actually - stuff it - she can wait ten seconds longer ! The Millionaire thing is a good example as each person makes their own independent decision, therefore not influenced by or influencing anyone else. Unlike when you decide to get your bin out on the wwrong day, just because the neighbour has done so + whole street makes a decision based on what the neighbour did ... who might be off his face on crack !!!

In simple terms yes. The concept has been misappropriated and confused with argumentum ad populum. Wisdom of crowds requires there to be a correct answer in order for the crowd to display their wisdom as statistically if you have a choice of 4 answers those who don't know the answer will be fairly evenly spread across the answers whereas the experts in the 'crowd' will create a spike in the results which will invariably give you the correct answer.

I have incredibly over simplified the theory but I'm sure if we wait 2 minutes for TrentFox to finish then he might offer a more comprehensive response.

[Fox92]

Wasn't there today but was disapointed to hear of Vardys injury. How bad did it look?

Pearson has said he was taken off as a precaution... Makes sense, in my opinion, just to prevent a niggle in case he did pick something up.

He sounded sharp though.

[MattyFromLE]

Pearson has said he was taken off as a precaution... Makes sense, in my opinion, just to prevent a niggle in case he did pick something up.

He sounded sharp though.

Vardy looked very good. Unlucky to have not scored really, got himself into some good positions. He just needs to bottle that enthusiasm, as at the moment I think his over enthusiasm is what put him off slightly. Lightning fast, I really hope he gets a goal early to settle his nerves.

So far I'm thoroughly impressed with Pearsons signings. Both teams looked very strong. Liam Moore, Danny Drinkwater, Marshall, Knockaert and Kasper for that amazing claw off the line stood out for me!

[Stig the Lawnmower]

Of course the results aren't going to particularly reliable - the marks are based on personal opinion, which varies greatly in football due to a number of factors. There's always going to be a wide array of opinions, so even if we did have some unified rating system it isn't neccesarily going to yield accurate results (and unless we were going to make a data base from all these statistics, then probably a waste of time). It's only meant to be a general gauge of whether a player/players performed well or not in certain peoples eyes, nothing more - something which is generally easy to discern from peoples posts, especially as they tend to leave comments by the ratings.

Regardless, I also disagree with your idea that a rating of 10 shouldn't be given anyway. Firstly, I find that the biggest difference between most "World class" (and I hate that word anyway, because it's so subjective) players and championship players is consistency. A "world class" player can pull of top performances on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean that a lesser player is not capable of putting out a performance that even a great player would be proud of - it just means it's very unlikely.

Secondly, we know none of these players are Messi or Ronaldo, or ever likely to be of a similar skill level. Surely we should be rating the players on their own merits and capabilities? What's the point in having a rating system that goes to 10 if the upper tiers of ratings are not allowed to be used? For me, a rating of 10 would be the best possible performance that you could reasonably expect from the player in question - we're not judging them by the standards of the 1970 Brazil team after all.

I keep thinking it's thursday

[Jaspa]

Beckford failed to score, as a striker thats shocking, beckford out!!

- Go to every thread and mention Beckford

- Wait

- ????????????

- Profit