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. :?
