Someone on the Ratings v Millwall thread suggested some definitions to go with the scores. Here's a stab at it. Feel free to shoot it down in flames.
1. Has brought a long lasting shame upon the club. Can never play for us again.
2. Stinker. A performance worthy of a fine. Something that would justify booing by all (with no arguments).
3. Very poor performance. Just didn’t try at all or got almost everything wrong.
4. Poor performance. Did little right and most things wrong.
5. Iffy performance. Either made significant errors or just didn’t seem to give things their full concentration.
6. Fair performance. Tried reasonably hard. Got most things right.
7. Good performance. Worked hard. Got almost everything right. Played a significant part in the team.
8. Great performance. Worked tirelessly. Got everything right.
9. Brilliant performance. The sort of performance that will keep you talking about it all night. Got absolutely everything right. One or two match-defining moves.
10. Absolutely scintillating performance. Every single move was perfect. Several unexpected but brilliant moves. Becomes a legend overnight. In years to come people will say, “I remember being there when…”
0
Comments
And for what it's worth I've thrown in my marking system - in comparison, it's only really your 1 to 3 markings that are much different - personally I feel if anyone really qualified for those markings, they would have put in such a totally unprofessional attitude against their own club, they should not be marked at all !
Danny Mills red-carded performance at home against Hull City for example, I would have marked 0 (zero) ...... because his was a performance so shockingly lacking in integrity, so unprofessional, so anti the club he represented - he was not worthy of any mark, whatsoever.
Even to earn a 3 ....... a player would have to be so much out of his depth, so hopelessly out of touch with the game, so wayward with everything he did, no ability off the ball even ...... ,it would be the kind of performance by a poster from Charlton Life suddenly thrust into the Charlton 1st team. !!
Even Waggy, Omo, Basey, Sam and others unrated by some, don't ever drop to that low level.
They're not amateurs - and would run rings around lads from this board in a training match!
The point I've tried to make....... was that some people were randomly marking a player down based on their emotional perception of that player - rather than an objective mark based on the player's actual overall performance.
Some players then are marked down, sometimes ridiculously low, as much because of their name.
If a player has put in the effort, and even though he's made mistakes, he's made some several positive or game saving contributions, he has to be worth far more than a 2 ...... that same standard of performance made by a more popular player example, would be marked by most around a 5 or 6.
And the reason players are mostly marked between 5 and 8 is because, sensibly applied, that's the markings they would generally earn - something like:
4 - stinker .... everything he tried went wrong
5 - poor ...either anonymous/disinterested or too many mistakes
6 - average ... acceptable performance, nothing special, some mistakes
7 - good ...... solid, dependable, few mistakes
8 - very good ..... something extra that made the player shine
9 - excellent ..... influential, match winning performance
10 - outstanding, exceptional out of this world performance
So rather than randomly mark a player, you'd apply some sort of consistancy.
In effect most performances would always be between 5 and 8.
The same point could be made about players who are randomly marked up based on an '..emotional perception of that player'.
Got me there, Stig, - it is Charlton, you know ......ha ha!
Seriously a 10 from a Charlton player .....well going back to the 70's, probably Mike Flanagan's performance against league Lleader's Nott's County - Charlton won 6-1 and Flash ran their defence ragged, scoring 4.
In the 80s ..... Allan Simonsen's scintillating performance beating Chelsea 5-2, when he just oozed pure class, couldn't be disposessed, laid on assists and scored twice. Exceptional.
In the 90s ..... Clive Mendonca at Wembley ........superbly led the line, never gave the ball away, scored 3 quality goals and calmly slotted home the first pen.
In the Naughties ......Scott Parker's performance against Chelsea in that pinnacle 4-2 win. So good Chelsea bought him to sabotage our challenge for Europe, in case we finished above Chelsea.
Maybe Kevin Lisbie's exceptional hat trick performance against Liverpool, with that phenominal last minute winning solo goal.
And some say, Lloyd Sam's performance at Tranmere this season, but I never saw it.
Other posters will probably come up with more, like Johnny Summers scoring 5 to beat Huddersfield 7-6 with 10 men, after losing 5-1. But before my time.
You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.
Agree....so long as the two goals are scored in open play.
If a striker is totally lost all game and misses a couple of sitters, yet scores the last minute winning goal in a desperately important fixture .........he's likely to be rated much higher than if he scored the winning goal with a tap in after just 5 mins, then missed chances late on in the game to seal the win
The result could have still been the same, say a 1-0 victory ..... but he'll be marked much lower if he scored early.
And he'd be a bloody hero if he scored a last gasp winner.
But why is this the case? Only because on your scale it's decided that 4/10 is a stinker rather than 1!
If that's the case we might as well mark from 0-6, if 0/10, 1/10, 2/10 and 3/10 are all the same thing, or not worthy of ever using.
The difference in performance between a 8/10 and a 9/10 should be exactly the same as between a 5/10 and a 6/10, we can't apply some sort of logarithmic/exponential scale to player performances can we?!
But why is that necessarily an advantage? If penalties were easy, then any old player would take them. Think of Darren Bent's late match winning penalty in the key relegation battle against Wigan a couple of seasons back - massive pressure on him but he found the top corner. If we'd won the game 3-0 and he'd scored a hat-trick of 1 yard tap-ins would that be a more impressive contribution?
Ultimately there will have to be some allowance for each fan to mark up a bit or down a bit for some kind of exceptional contribution, but I think guidlines on where you should be basing your assessment are very useful. As it stands you may get two fans feeling one player has played to about the same level, but their scores may differ just because one thinks 5 is par and the other thinks 7 is par. It's fair enough to say X was pretty average overall (say 5) but I've marked them 6 for the effort they put in or 7 becasue they scored a crucial goal, made a magnifcent save etc but we'll alwys have to leave that down to individual judgement.
Without the base guidlines on what score means what, though, the scores actually don't mean a great deal from a scientific statistical view point.
Well Dabos, if you think a stinker should be rated at 1 out of 10, fine - that is your choice.
But you'll find the greater majority will classify a stinker at around 4.
You'll also find the greater majority of posters are, within a small band, remarkably consistant.
Take a look at ratings and you'll see what I mean.
If the statistics are to mean anything at all, especially when summing up at the end of the season. then people must be using a reasonably consistant basis - otherwise, the entire stats are rendered meaningless.
I'll give an example .....against Millwall, most posters rated Lloyd Sam between 5.5 and 7.
Despite not being his best game, he kept the team shape, worked hard, covered his fullback well, and had major involvement in creating 3 of our goals.
And according to one poster, he was marked .......2.
See my point.....?
;o)
I see your point, but because a majority of people classify a stinker as 4 doesn't make it logical. Like I said, we might as well mark it out of 6 if the lowest mark we can give out is 4/10.
If I keep barking on about this though, a regimented set of marking rules which I don't like might be introduced (eg. 4 = Stinker), so I should be quiet
This should be a hen's teeth rating.
6 ...... because Kishishev would have grafted to break up play in front of his defence.
He'd be in opponents faces to deny them space & time on the ball - and his movement off the ball would create a platform for his creative players to do their thang.
In effect, his role would have been destroyer .... to stop the other team playing.
And that's what his manager would have told him to do - so he'll be playing to his manager's instructions.
A vital role. Not pretty, but effective. Yep ..... a 6
Actually,Vinnie, as you know ....... Nathan is a bit of a legend.
Unfortunately, AFKA's "player rating" rules don't allow for players who play for less than 30 mins to be rated.
;o)
problem is players ratings are always going to be affected by ppls feelings towards a player, just the way it is but generally you get the jist of it from statbank