Rules of Ratings

[sheffield_fox]

After a bit of debate on the subject, I feel as though I should try and clarify how players should be rated after each match. Feel free to say if you think I am wrong, but I think this is a fair way of doing it.

10 - Contender for performance of the season. A match-winning performance in every sense of the word, the inspiration of the team.

9 – An excellent performance by the player. Stood out above everyone else on the pitch.

8 – A very good performance indeed. Offered a huge lot to the team.

7 – A good performance by the player. Did well.

6 – Was OK. A pretty average performance. Nothing out of the ordinary.

5 – Less than average. Not the best performance the player has given by any means. Disappointing.

4 – Quite a poor performance. Did not get involved and not much seemed to go his way.

3 – An all round poor performance. Let the team down on numerous occasions and did not look interested.

2 – A woeful performance. Nothing seemed to go right for the player at all and frustrated his team mates and the fans.

1 – No adjective can describe how bad this player was. Did not complete a single pass, header, shot on target and couldn’t defend. (PLEASE ONLY USE THIS IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY).

Please only use the extremes when absolutely necessary. Many people have been letting their frustrations get the better of them and giving 1’s when the player involved has at least completed a few passes and done some things right.

Feel free to argue if you feel these descriptions of ratings are unfair.

 

[Joe_Fox]

After a bit of debate on the subject, I feel as though I should try and clarify how players should be rated after each match. Feel free to say if you think I am wrong, but I think this is a fair way of doing it.

10 - Contender for performance of the season. A match-winning performance in every sense of the word, the inspiration of the team.

9 – An excellent performance by the player. Stood out above everyone else on the pitch.

8 – A very good performance indeed. Offered a huge lot to the team.

7 – A good performance by the player. Did well.

6 – Was OK. A pretty average performance. Nothing out of the ordinary.

5 – Less than average. Not the best performance the player has given by any means. Disappointing.

4 – Quite a poor performance. Did not get involved and not much seemed to go his way.

3 – An all round poor performance. Let the team down on numerous occasions and did not look interested.

2 – A woeful performance. Nothing seemed to go right for the player at all and frustrated his team mates and the fans.

1 – No adjective can describe how bad this player was. Did not complete a single pass, header, shot on target and couldn’t defend. (PLEASE ONLY USE THIS IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY).

Please only use the extremes when absolutely necessary. Many people have been letting their frustrations get the better of them and giving 1’s when the player involved has at least completed a few passes and done some things right.

Feel free to argue if you feel these descriptions of ratings are unfair.

I think your '1' should be a '0' score. 6 is clearly above average as 5 is the median score. Apart from that, the descriptions are about right. So in summary, replace your '6' with "Slightly better than average" and then move your descriptions of '6' to '1' all down one number. i.e. 6 to 5, 5 to 4, 4 to 3, 3 to 2, 2 to 1 and 1 to 0. I think that'd be better.

 

[Brauny Blue]

rules

I agree Sheffield.
A 6 is what most player ratings deem to be an average peformance.

 

[Joe_Fox]

Re: rules

I agree Sheffield.
A 6 is what most player ratings deem to be an average peformance.

Well yes, 6 is average, but 5 is the basis of average. 6 is slightly above average. Think pecentages. You are marking the players out of 10 which is a basic form of percentage marking. i.e. 10/10 is 100%, 5/10 is 50% (average).

 

[kam]

Agree with idea, I've had that type of template in mind when posting player assessments.

What concerns me is where does Mr Dublin fit in a 1 to 10 marking system.

 

[sheffield_fox]

If you are working on a 0-10 basis thats fine Joe, but we are not. I don't want to see any 0 ratings in there at all as ratings really should only be 1-10 and I think this is the fairest way of doing it.

 

[Brauny Blue]

rules

Joe_Fox wrote:

Well yes, 6 is average, but 5 is the basis of average. 6 is slightly above average. Think pecentages. You are marking the players out of 10 which is a basic form of percentage marking. i.e. 10/10 is 100%, 5/10 is 50% (average).

Take your point JF.
But Sheffield's system is the only way Blake can reach halfway

 

[sheffield_fox]

Agree with idea, I've had that type of template in mind when posting player assessments.

What concerns me is where does Mr Dublin fit in a 1 to 10 marking system.

This is exactly the kind of mentality that I am trying to get rid of kam. Players should really start the game on a level field say a 6, but people tend to start players who they don't like on a 1 and whether they have a good game or not people don't score them well. All I'm trying to do is get a fair scoring system.

 

[Steven]

Agree with idea, I've had that type of template in mind when posting player assessments.

What concerns me is where does Mr Dublin fit in a 1 to 10 marking system.

This is exactly the kind of mentality that I am trying to get rid of kam. Players should really start the game on a level field say a 6, but people tend to start players who they don't like on a 1 and whether they have a good game or not people don't score them well. All I'm trying to do is get a fair scoring system.

Two things. One you will never get this lot to agree on anything. :roll: Secondly won't the differences in scoring scales even out over the season :?:

 

[Tony Elsby]

Agree with idea, I've had that type of template in mind when posting player assessments.

What concerns me is where does Mr Dublin fit in a 1 to 10 marking system.

This is exactly the kind of mentality that I am trying to get rid of kam. Players should really start the game on a level field say a 6, but people tend to start players who they don't like on a 1 and whether they have a good game or not people don't score them well. All I'm trying to do is get a fair scoring system.

If you're not careful you'll be apeing Tony Blair and legislating for how many times a minute we breathe, what time of day we are allowed to enjoy conjugal rights, indeed, whether we're allowed anything at all without TB's permission or an identity card.

Look at the national newspapers and see the differences. Assessing players performances is a subjective exercise, dependent solely on how the individual views things.

That's right the individual. I'll put it in capital letters INDIVIDUAL because they're a dying breed, much hunted by the powers-that-be of all kinds.

If you want a scientific assessment based on the criteria you layed down then get a sharp-eyed penpusher to record every action of the game - shots on target, shots off target etc and you will get a pretty-well perfect factsheet.

Me, I assess players on the outcome of what they do. If Pieman is a spectator then lets a goalkeeper's punt into the net then the one significant contribution he makes is to cost us the game. By what yardstick does he deserve any marks? We are, after all, in the results business and he, directly, unambiguously has cost us victory.

If, on the other hand we are 1-0 up and Pieman, apart from normal work, pulls off only two magnificent saves, then his contribution has arguably earned us three points and warrants a high mark.

If Gillespie skins his man all afternoon but either delivers poor crosses, or good crosses that have no effect, he would get a lower mark from me than if he had an ordinary visual game but slipped his man three times, directly made two goals and we won.

It's the outcome that matters and the contribution people make to that outcome.

Often, translated to marks, the result of my kind of assessment would be totally different from the scientists recorded ball-by-ball judgement of a player.

Either you want the scientific verdict (in which case you only need one man with an accurate shorthand) or, as is surely one of the principles of this forum, you want a colourful range of views.

I would personally never dream of telling other posters how to form their assessment and if we all did it the same way it would be bloody boring.

Free speech is already a myth. No need to make it more so.

 

[sheffield_fox]

Ok ok, its just meant to be a guideline because there has been a lot of arguing in the past on it. I don't have to do this you know.

 

[kam]

Agree with idea, I've had that type of template in mind when posting player assessments.

What concerns me is where does Mr Dublin fit in a 1 to 10 marking system.

This is exactly the kind of mentality that I am trying to get rid of kam. Players should really start the game on a level field say a 6, but people tend to start players who they don't like on a 1 and whether they have a good game or not people don't score them well. All I'm trying to do is get a fair scoring system.

Each game I take along my laptop and have a starting point of 5, adding and deducting 1 for each good/bad piece of play.

It's not my fault Mr Dublin always is a minus, that's why I started awarding him marks for finding the car park, changing room, correct colour strip etc.

Then on Saturday he scores. I gave him quite a good mark, however, on Monday I saw the goals on TV, imagine my surprise when I realised the Plymouth goal wouldn't have been a goal but for Mr Dublin's very shiny boots.

 

[kam]

Also, I must say I've always liked Dion, unfortunately I'm afraid time has caught up with him.

I wish it could be different.

 

[Tony Elsby]

Ok ok, its just meant to be a guideline because there has been a lot of arguing in the past on it. I don't have to do this you know.

There you are, the appreciation of what you do is in your own paragraph..."there's been a lot of arguing".

That's milk and honey to this forum. I read the ratings, find em thoroughly interesting and try to make a contribution.

If we're all directed to use the same criteria we'll all be sleeping by the third post.

I'm not slagging off what you do (I'm appreciative enough to read it week-by-week). All I'm doing is imploring you to "resist new rules" and keep it interesting.

We get new rules, new rules and more new rules on the news every night.
It ruins your dinner.

 

[sheffield_fox]

Ok I take your point Tony, I'm just trying to help people out who feel as though they don't know whether their ratings are fair.

The main aim was to try and eliminate the amount of ridiculous ratings we get such as 1's in frustration. I'm sure I'm not being too petty by just asking this.

 

[kam]

Ok I take your point Tony, I'm just trying to help people out who feel as though they don't know whether their ratings are fair.

The main aim was to try and eliminate the amount of ridiculous ratings we get such as 1's in frustration. I'm sure I'm not being too petty by just asking this.

Not at all, but different people see games in different ways.

For example Morris, from my point of view I don't recall him touching the ball or doing anything constructive in the 45 minutes he was on therefore I think I gave him 1 mark which I think was justified.

other people gave him various marks up to 6, it's all subjective opinion.

 

[Steven]

Isn't there some way of multiplying each score for each player by some factor that will compensate for the variance in marking.

 

[homer]

Steven, you really should get out more....

 

[Steven]

Steven, you really should get out more....

lol You are absolutely right. :roll: Seriously that is just the way my brain thinks. :roll: :? :?

 

[highland fox]

Steven goes on plenty of outings
Monday-Whist drive
Tuesday-Knitting Club
Wednesday-Cross-Stitch Evening
Thursday-Over 60's Singles Night
Friday-Ladyboy Lovers R Us Association Meetings
Saturday-'Thai Boys That Do' Cinema Club
Sundays-Stays in with Half a Mackeson and Heartbeat

See, he leads a rich and varied Social life.