United v West Ham Player Ratings

Originally posted by Fergiesarmy:
<strong>

so if had took his 3 chances what would he have got then?</strong><hr></blockquote>

More pertinently, if those were the only chances we had had, what rating would you have given him ?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Julian Denny:
<strong>

More pertinently, if those were the only chances we had had, what rating would you have given him ?</strong><hr></blockquote>

but they werent were they because he helped create 3 other chances

he only missed the target once and u want to give him a 5 or a generous six you are a knob face it.
Click to expand...
 
Regarding the Ruud debate, to say he had an awful game is harsh. A more accurate description would be he did everything but score. Yes, yes, I know he's a centre forward and it's his job to score but really he did not have a bad game, just unusually indifferent in his finishing (and it didn't matter anyway!). The last bad game I've seen Ruud play was the Citeh game and his performance in that game and the West Ham game was world's apart. And just for the record, I was at both games.
 
Originally posted by Fergiesarmy:
<strong>

but they werent were they because he helped create 3 other chances

he only missed the target once and u want to give him a 5 or a generous six you are a knob face it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Your an abusive idiot - forget it.
Click to expand...
 
what the feck, hes been excellent recently, hes probably my favourite player but would u like us all to lie and say how much of an excellent game he had, if the chances had gone in, i woulda given him higher, because thats his job, to score goals aswell. i bet if u ask ruud himself hel say he had a poor game.
Ok lets try

yeh ruud is the bestist
we love him
i think hes magic
rah rah rah

happy?. :rolleyes:
 
seems there is only two of u on here think he had a "bad" game

if u actually watched football for the game it is u would appreciate that everything went through ruud and he played a massive part in winning the game albeit he didnt score fecking shock horror

to say he had a bad game shows a lack of knowledge, appreciation and a level of stupidity i would expect from a mickey mouser

but thats just my opinion

;)
 
Hurray, the squabbling on the RedCafe is back! I was getting bored with all the lovey-doveyness anyway! ;)

OK, as a compromise, how about Ruud did not have a good game, nor did he have a bad game - he had an in-between game?!

Off now to fill in that job application for UN peacekeeper.....
 
The only reason people think he had a bad game is because he missed a couple and didn't score. If he missed six but scored two, everyone would say he had a brilliant game.

I hope Ruud isn't going to get the same kind of label that is stuck on Ole - that if he doesn't score he's having a bad game.

Well by his own standards maybe he was not as brilliant as usual yesterday, but no-one can say he had a bad game.

He's here to put the ball in the net, we know that, but there's a lot more to his game and the fact that he might not score every time shouldn't detract from that.
 
I'm surprised by a few ppl that thought Giggsy had a great game. I thought it was a quiet one from him, he wasted a few balls and didn't take on players as much. Also Forlan has been criticised, don't forget he put Ruud in with a great ball, but Ruud didn't finish.

Barthez 7 - didn't have too much to do
G.Nev 8 - great attacking
Brown 8 - solid
Silvestre 8 - solid as well
O'Shea 9 - fantastic runs
Ole 8 - fits his wing duties with his striking
Veron 9 - ran the show with Scholes
P.Neville 8 - Another sound game, kept Cole quiet
Giggs 7 - Not as good as he can be
Scholes 9 - great link play and vision
Ruud 8 - held the ball up and played ppl in well, but for once his finishing was poor.
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
Just more convenient to let them ask rather than second guess their desire to. It's down to RG and Wibble anyway what their policy will be - but making it totally public would feck up the ratings, so something has to be done.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It should not be too tough to reject the fecked up ratings. What the program should be made to do is to reject anything that is deviating by let's say 3 on a scale of 10 from the average. Or something of the sort. Whatever is inconsistent should be rejected and that can be taken care of softwarewise, I believe.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Livvie20:
<strong>The only reason people think he had a bad game is because he missed a couple and didn't score. If he missed six but scored two, everyone would say he had a brilliant game.

I hope Ruud isn't going to get the same kind of label that is stuck on Ole - that if he doesn't score he's having a bad game.

Well by his own standards maybe he was not as brilliant as usual yesterday, but no-one can say he had a bad game.

He's here to put the ball in the net, we know that, but there's a lot more to his game and the fact that he might not score every time shouldn't detract from that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you're a little too generous on this. Yes we can't say a striker must have a bad game if he doesn't score, typically when there is no supply or he just can't get any chance at all throughout the match. But if the case is that he got a couple of clear chances or even one-on-one chance but he missed ALL of them, and he didn't directly assist any of the goals we scored, then I just don't know how people can say that he has a good game.
Click to expand...
 
Barthez 5 feck all to do
G Neville 7 not bad
Brown 7 not bad
Silvestre 7 not bad
O Shea 7 not bad
Giggs 7 not bad
Veron .5 great goal, kept it below the rafters
P Neville 7 not bad
OGS 7 not bad
Scholes 10 not bad
RVN 7 not bad
Beckham 7 not bad

All in all a 'Not Bad' performance against Bottom of the league West Ham

Wouldn't have expected anything else but a win
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
Just more convenient to let them ask rather than second guess their desire to. It's down to RG and Wibble anyway what their policy will be - but making it totally public would feck up the ratings, so something has to be done.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It hasn't finally be decided but filtering would be a difficult task. Removing the data from a few WUM's might be easier. I'm not sure what will be the easiest option - I'll ask RG who developed the application.

As long as we have large numbers of genuine raters then having a few WUM's who give 0/1/2's to all players will be balanced by the over optimistic who will rate all players at 10. For example if a WUM gave a player a rating of 1 when 100 people had already given the player an average rating of 7 would only bring the average rating down to 6.94.

In any case since they are subjective standards anyway their only real value is to compare players within and between games. This will be possible even if WUM's bring the overall average down a bit.

The biggest danger is if WUMs target one particular player then the data could be skewed. As I said earlier I think we will look at banning WUM's, pulling their past data from the database and excluding them from this and any other app that are developed. Hopefully they will not want to be excluded from the other apps merely to be a tit on the player rating one. If possible we could exclude the top and bottom 5% (or whatever) ratings for each player to exclude most of the WUM's. Again not sure if that will be possible.

BTW this app will be hosted on my domain theatreofdreams.net and not the caf. Niall has kindly given us permission to announce the public launch when it occurs (3-10 days from now I would say) but it won't be run through this forum as such. We will make an official announcement in the near future.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Vinay:
<strong>

It should not be too tough to reject the fecked up ratings. What the program should be made to do is to reject anything that is deviating by let's say 3 on a scale of 10 from the average. Or something of the sort. Whatever is inconsistent should be rejected and that can be taken care of softwarewise, I believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>

RG's application has been written from scratch in his spare time. Rejecting outliers in the data is theoretically possible but it will depend on how easy it is to program and how much time RG has to make said changes.

The rest of this season will be a trial for this app (and another yet to be anounced) with next seasons applications hopefully being the finished article (or nearly so).
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by uranushk1:
<strong>

I think you're a little too generous on this. Yes we can't say a striker must have a bad game if he doesn't score, typically when there is no supply or he just can't get any chance at all throughout the match. But if the case is that he got a couple of clear chances or even one-on-one chance but he missed ALL of them, and he didn't directly assist any of the goals we scored, then I just don't know how people can say that he has a good game.</strong><hr></blockquote>

he didnt miss ALL of them the keeper saved his first shot after an excellent turn inside, the keeper just got something on the ball when he tried rounding him and he put one wide after forlan put him through!

and to say he didnt directly assist any of the goals is fecking stupid, he clearly created the first with a great ball out wide to nev and in doing that ole filled his space in the box!

the second he won the free kick that veron scored from so how u dont thing he assisted in that goal is beyond me as it wouldnt have happened without him.

the third if he hadnt been in the box u can bet that defender would have been facing away from goal and able to clear

amazing what some people see in the same match

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Barthez: 6 - Didn't have to do anything
G Neville: 8
Brown: 8
Silvestre: 7.5 - would've been 8 but he didn't look so comfortable once moved back to the left
O'Shea: 9 - is there anything this kid can't do?
Ole: 7 - compared to recent displays he had a quiet match
P Neville: 7
Veron: 8.5
Scholes: 8
Giggs: 7
Ruud: 7
Beckham: 7
Diego: 7 - Played a couple of good balls that almost created something out of nothing.
Blanc: 5 - As soon as he came on our defence looked shaky.
 
I'm quite surprised how many people gave JOS lower ratings than he deserved.. wasn't O'Shea named MOM after the game?

Those of you who gave him 7 or 7.5 must have not watched the game properly then? Or not watch it at all?

Someone should set some rules about people posting in this thread.. they should have atleast watched the highlights..
 
Originally posted by RUnited:
<strong>I'm quite surprised how many people gave JOS lower ratings than he deserved.. wasn't O'Shea named MOM after the game?

Those of you who gave him 7 or 7.5 must have not watched the game properly then? Or not watch it at all?

Someone should set some rules about people posting in this thread.. they should have atleast watched the highlights..</strong><hr></blockquote>

IMO only watching the highlights may not be enough to give a player rating. Especially in some of the programs the highlights are just the goals and some moves very close to a goal.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by RUnited:
<strong>Someone should set some rules about people posting in this thread.. they should have atleast watched the highlights..</strong><hr></blockquote>

You can't set rules about peoples opinions!
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Livvie20:
<strong>

You can't set rules about peoples opinions!</strong><hr></blockquote>

but it really is stupid for someone to give ratings when they haven't seen the game.

i've been fuming all last week because Starsports Website picked Veron and Scholes to be in the team of the week after the Arsenal game. Phil clearly outplayed both of his teammates in midfield - and received the MOM mind you - yet he was not included in the team of the week! it's crazy! and i bet you the majority of the people didn't pick Phil because they didn't see the game.. it's unfair people get ratings only because they score.. their contribution during the game should count too.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Wibble:
<strong>How would you police such a rule?</strong><hr></blockquote>

i think there are the obvious in the ratings.. those who gave JOS less than an 8 in the last week knows absolutely shite about football IMO.

People like them costed Phil his name in the team of the week voted on StarSports website after the Arsenal weekend. He was outstanding, yet Veron and Scholes were picked over him. Crazy ain't it?

How can an MOM of a game gets a 7 or a 7.5 AND less than his teammates who didn't do better? This is absolute bollox i tell you.
Click to expand...
 
But if you exclude everyone who didn't see the whole game (how you could do this remains a mystery to me) and those that were deemd to be wrong (almost everyone since ratings are subjective) you would be left with .. erm .. well just me really ;)

With a ratings application you have no choice but to rely on the sheer weight of number of people posting "accurate" ratings makiing any joke or wind-up ratings statistically insignificant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.