LCFC Player Ratings 2004/5 Season

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Dublin's and Gillespie's low rankings are due to their poor starts to the season, Dublin has been our best player since xmas, but was pretty poor before that. Interesting to note that only 4/5 of the top 10 will be with us next season
 
By the Law of Human Frailty v Cold Statistics, those who played the fewest games will be ranked highest (because there aren't as many numbers to crunch) or lowest (because it didn't take us all long to see they were crap).

So, the Foxes' Trust rankings bear this Law out.

Those who showed they were crap in the shortest possible time are at the bottom end from number 21 downwards. Of the top 10, 7 played lass than 20 games for us. Those in the top ten who played more than that are Walker (you can't say much bad about him except that he had one mare, was injured, and got high wages), Tiatto (one of my two personal Players of the Season, whatever his clumsy faults at times), and Heath (which shows how under-rated he is by the fans, or shows that we've let him off because we think he's a bit young for a centre-back, and his lack of pace hasn't been exploited too much in the fizzies). Maybury's late arrival nevertheless means he played almost 20 games, and he seems by the rankings to be the most consistently good player (which is why he's my other Player of the Season)

This Law says the more you play, the lower you'll be ranked unless you're astounding, so Connolly has done well to come in at 10, as he's the ever-present, but from there on in I'm a bit surprised by how low Williams is ranked (except that he's drifted in some games and is too easily pushed off the ball), and I'm not surprised, though I think it unfair, that Jordan is ranked so low (just above the craps). This shows his inconsistency - flair, pace and then 'Who the hell was that pass to, Stewart?'. I love him at his best, and at his worst he's a total embarrassment, but I wish the fans would get off his back. Creative players can be quite neurotic, and fan hatred ruins their game. I'm also surprised, given the Law, how high Scowy ranked, but I suppose the rankings can at times reflect consistent mediocrity which looks like reliability.

All in all, the rankings mean very little - as statistics are apt to - but just bear out the laws of statistics. :?
 
Innocent said:
All in all, the rankings mean very little - as statistics are apt to - but just bear out the laws of statistics. :?

I think the biggest influence on these stats is the relatively small sample size.
There were onlt 40ish votes for each player - and those votes came from a fairly small number of people, so an individual's bias could easily affect the final rankings.
 
webmaster said:
Innocent said:
All in all, the rankings mean very little - as statistics are apt to - but just bear out the laws of statistics. :?

I think the biggest influence on these stats is the relatively small sample size.
There were onlt 40ish votes for each player - and those votes came from a fairly small number of people, so an individual's bias could easily affect the final rankings.

Be interesting to compare them to sheffield fox's ratings then, perhaps the trust could have the fans ratings added to thier website to save sheff a job!
 
Lboro fox said:
webmaster said:
Innocent said:
All in all, the rankings mean very little - as statistics are apt to - but just bear out the laws of statistics. :?

I think the biggest influence on these stats is the relatively small sample size.
There were onlt 40ish votes for each player - and those votes came from a fairly small number of people, so an individual's bias could easily affect the final rankings.

Be interesting to compare them to sheffield fox's ratings then, perhaps the trust could have the fans ratings added to thier website to save sheff a job!

Sheff's going up market next season. :D :D :wink: ;-) :mrgreen:
 
Steven said:
Lboro fox said:
webmaster said:
Innocent said:
All in all, the rankings mean very little - as statistics are apt to - but just bear out the laws of statistics. :?

I think the biggest influence on these stats is the relatively small sample size.
There were onlt 40ish votes for each player - and those votes came from a fairly small number of people, so an individual's bias could easily affect the final rankings.

Be interesting to compare them to sheffield fox's ratings then, perhaps the trust could have the fans ratings added to thier website to save sheff a job!

So ive heard!! ;-) Would save him a job if the trust did do it, would also link all the message boards together a bit better. Not sure how many do the ratings but i think its just this one and FT.
Sheff's going up market next season. :D :D :wink: ;-) :mrgreen:
 
Lboro fox said:
webmaster said:
Innocent said:
All in all, the rankings mean very little - as statistics are apt to - but just bear out the laws of statistics. :?

I think the biggest influence on these stats is the relatively small sample size.
There were onlt 40ish votes for each player - and those votes came from a fairly small number of people, so an individual's bias could easily affect the final rankings.

Be interesting to compare them to sheffield fox's ratings then, perhaps the trust could have the fans ratings added to thier website to save sheff a job!

We would be happy to publish the ratings that Sheff compiles next season to tie in with the match reports
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1128
2Manchester C  1123
3Chelsea1119
4Arsenal1119
5Nottm F1119
6Brighton1119
7Fulham1118
8Newcastle1118
9Aston Villa1118
10Tottenham 1116
11Brentford1116
12Bournemouth1115
13Manchester U1115
14West Ham1112
15Leicester1110
16Everton1110
17Ipswich118
18Palace117
19Wolves116
20Southampton114

Latest posts

Back
Top