Match ratings

[AndyT]

Great game but I dread to think what the earlier part of the season was like if some of the earlier posters are throwing 8s around like confetti.

Marking is a personal choice, I feel, and some set up average as a different figure to others.

FWIW, I mark 7.0 as average and so anyone with 7.5-8.5, as several were on Saturday, IMHO, get an upsell on 7.0 due to putting in a better than average performance.

Given the lack of confidence going into the match. The pitch. The quality of the opposition and a new manager wanting to try slightly different things, I thought the performance warranted an above average mark for around seven of the players at least and average or just under for the rest.

When marking, for me, it's often the endeavor, hard-work and so on that I would base some of my marks on.

My top was 8.5, but I have given a 9.0 before, for something exceptional. Whilst no-one quite stood out enough to warrant that on Saturday, more than most put in an above expected performance.

 

[rigsby]

Marking is a personal choice, I feel, and some set up average as a different figure to others.

FWIW, I mark 7.0 as average and so anyone with 7.5-8.5, as several were on Saturday, IMHO, get an upsell on 7.0 due to putting in a better than average performance.

Given the lack of confidence going into the match. The pitch. The quality of the opposition and a new manager wanting to try slightly different things, I thought the performance warranted an above average mark for around seven of the players at least and average or just under for the rest.

When marking, for me, it's often the endeavor, hard-work and so on that I would base some of my marks on.

My top was 8.5, but I have given a 9.0 before, for something exceptional. Whilst no-one quite stood out enough to warrant that on Saturday, more than most put in an above expected performance.

I know we have discussed this before AndyT but I always think a 6 means average. Perhaps we need a poll to make sure we have a zone standard to all work from.

 

[AndyT]

Not according to 'Match' magazine from the distant past now. But the yardstick by which all player ratings are gleaned :-

4.0-6.5 below average
7.0 average
7.5-10.0 above average

Simples!

 

[rigsby]

Not according to 'Match' magazine from the distant past now. But the yardstick by which all player ratings are gleaned.

4.0-6.5 below average
7.0 average
7.5-10.0 above average

Simples!

LOL, You sound like OBL peeping through the changing room door.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Not according to 'Match' magazine from the distant past now. But the yardstick by which all player ratings are gleaned :-

4.0-6.5 below average
7.0 average
7.5-10.0 above average

Simples!

So you are actually using a 4-10 scale?

I actually agree with rigsby - 6 is average.

 

[RHB]

This from WhoScored.com. Totally off topic by the way so worth it's own thread maybe?

WhoScored Ratings Explained

WhoScored.com Ratings are considered to be the most accurate, respected and well-known performance indicators in the world of football. Our ratings are currently used among media giants, bookmakers and football clubs.

WhoScored.com Ratings are based on a unique, comprehensive statistical algorithm, calculated live during the game. There are over 200 raw statistics included in the calculation of a player'’s/team’'s rating, weighted according to their influence within the game. Every event of importance is taken into account, with a positive or negative effect on ratings weighted in relation to its area on the pitch and its outcome.

 

[Uncle Leo]

To me, 7/10 implies better than average. Every player should start on 5/10 - maybe 6/10 - and go up or down from there

Although I seem to remember it was Brian Glanville who said that if you're going to do ratings for the whole XI that are accurate enough to be useful, you're probably not watching the game as a whole properly.

 

[rigsby]

Agree with RHB this should have its own thread as we have match ratings every week.

 

[AndyT]

This from WhoScored.com. Totally off topic by the way so worth it's own thread maybe?

WhoScored Ratings Explained

WhoScored.com Ratings are considered to be the most accurate, respected and well-known performance indicators in the world of football. Our ratings are currently used among media giants, bookmakers and football clubs.

WhoScored.com Ratings are based on a unique, comprehensive statistical algorithm, calculated live during the game. There are over 200 raw statistics included in the calculation of a player'’s/team’'s rating, weighted according to their influence within the game. Every event of importance is taken into account, with a positive or negative effect on ratings weighted in relation to its area on the pitch and its outcome.

Odd way of rating, that is.

Surely 'average' is a single mean figure and you can go up or down from there.

Average can't be a span of figures. How can 6.0 and 6.9 both be average? .. Doesn't make sense.

Also, player ratings always ran from 4.0-10.0

 

[RobM]

Odd way of rating, that is.
Surely 'average' is a single mean figure and you can go up or down from there.
Average can't be a span of figures. How can 6.0 and 6.9 both be average? .. Doesn't make sense.

It's obvious - some are more average than others!

 

[AndyT]

.... LOL! :smile: .. Very true 'Rob'

You are George Orwell and I claim my five shillings!

 

[Firestorm]

I cant see how the rating can be decided based on average, surely the average is only truly known when all of the ratings are in.

Ratings wise , the starting ground for me would be a 5 with increases for good and decreases for errors.

 

[AndyT]

That's if you base on an average for that match.

For example, if everyone was given 4 out of 10, then that would mean they all put in an average performance. But giving 4 out of 10 suggests everyone thought the whole side was rubbish.

The average for match stats is a mean figure for general football performance and you rate the player above that, if his performance was better than expected and below that if it is worse.

 

[rigsby]

So far the average range suggested runs from 5 up to 7. So to save confusion if we take the mean of the average we get the figure 6....Simple

 

[Napster]

So far the average range suggested runs from 5 up to 7. So to save confusion if we take the mean of the average we get the figure 6....Simple

only if you round up or down.

 

[AndyT]

So far the average range suggested runs from 5 up to 7. So to save confusion if we take the mean of the average we get the figure 6....Simple

Depends what your span of figures is.

If it's 4.0-10.0 then average is 7.0 as your starting point.

If it's 2.0-10.0 then average is 6.0 as your starting point.

No player or extremely rarely does a player rate below 4.0 and in the past they never did. Even old whoscored.com with their algorithms and suchlike nonsense could only find 0.03% rated below 4.0.

 

[rigsby]

only if you round up or down.

I meant by people on here. We don't see to many 6.9 marks given out.

 

[RHB]

Our latest match against Scunthorpe has raised a discussion over match ratings. The relevant posts have been moved here, and off we go!

 

[buffalowolf]

So you are actually using a 4-10 scale?

I actually agree with rigsby - 6 is average.

Sorry but to me -6 would be ,who on earth believes this man can play football.:hilarious:minus 6 as average you got to be joking lol

 

[fbm]

Odd way of rating, that is.

Surely 'average' is a single mean figure and you can go up or down from there.

Average can't be a span of figures. How can 6.0 and 6.9 both be average? .. Doesn't make sense.

Also, player ratings always ran from 4.0-10.0

Isn't average relating to the performance and not the score? Otherwise the other descriptions would be "above average " and "below average".

When I used to do my "The fbm view and ratings" several seasons ago, I always used 6 as a yardstick of average, or maybe I should say unspectacular. Didn't do anything wrong, didn't do anything exceptional.

I have occasionally given 9.5 if the performance has been a wordly. 10 implies that nothing can be improved upon at all, which is never the case, so I don't think I've ever given one. Although no doubt someone will trawl back through the threads and come up with a few occasions when I have given a 10...