• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Ex-Spurs Player Eric Dier

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Matt1882 said:
90 minutes in a match when you can see things that MoTD and the camera's don't show IS an advantage.
The trick I find is not being utterly shit faced at the time, which sadly, a lot of fans are.
I can't really see how any logical, sane person, can believe they see the full picture on highlights and V coverage. You only see what the camera is pointing at.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Where are your seats?
If you’re telling me that you a low vantage point seat in the South Stand (as an example) gives you a better vantage point than the TV cameras over the whole pitch then you’re full of it.

I always watch game highlights after I’ve been to the game because of stuff I miss in real time… and I’m not including the various distractions around me at the ground.
 
GeorgeGraham said:
Where are your seats?
If you’re telling me that you a low vantage point seat in the South Stand (as an example) gives you a better vantage point than the TV cameras over the whole pitch then you’re full of it.

I always watch game highlights after I’ve been to the game because of stuff I miss in real time… and I’m not including the various distractions around me at the ground.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Block 530. High up, diagonal view across the entire pitch.
Perfect view to see everything I want to look at.
 
Airfixx said:
You're the proverbial deaf ears... Why would someone make a concerted effort to make an impact on an 'averaged' rating that they have no concern for to begin with......?

You'll find most people here will take it or leave it (no-one is offended by the mere existence of your ratings thread), but your emotional attachment to your ratings project has to accept that many won't be inclined to accept them as credible when it comes to a debate about a player. Nor will they feel inclined to join in (see first line of this post).



......According to your own sense judgement perhaps.

Same thing applies when it comes to whether or not you deem a poster is "responsible"..... According to your musings above unless they behave according to your preferred behavioral code then they aren't worthy of contributing to your precious ratings anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Some of the behaviour from Spur to Spur is very sad. I'm trying to promote debate and provide data over a long period.
Alisdair Gold does ratings, Spurs podcasts do, Chis Cowlin compiles and presents them. Sky and the BBC do them, newspapers publish them. Spurs websites do them. I just compile them and would like true Spurs fans opinion.
 
Shotgunofmichalebrow said:
Hey Meth Dealer, serious question. Do you think the ratings of people watching games on the box should be equitable with people rating players watching a game in the stadium? I ask because it was only live that I truly began appreciate how horribly inadequate both Hojbjerg and Dier were.
I in particular had a much higher opinion of Hojbjerg when watching him on television. His paucity in tracking runs and shocking lack of mobility is only truly stark when watching him off the ball.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Antiques dealer.
 
Shotgunofmichalebrow said:
Hey Meth Dealer, serious question. Do you think the ratings of people watching games on the box should be equitable with people rating players watching a game in the stadium? I ask because it was only live that I truly began appreciate how horribly inadequate both Hojbjerg and Dier were.
I in particular had a much higher opinion of Hojbjerg when watching him on television. His paucity in tracking runs and shocking lack of mobility is only truly stark when watching him off the ball.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ratings are taken from multiple sources. I would appreciate those from the ground very much.
 
GeorgeGraham said:
Where are your seats?
If you’re telling me that you a low vantage point seat in the South Stand (as an example) gives you a better vantage point than the TV cameras over the whole pitch then you’re full of it.

I always watch game highlights after I’ve been to the game because of stuff I miss in real time… and I’m not including the various distractions around me at the ground.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I rate via Spursplay and rewind passages of play if I'm not sure. I log each players involvement good or bad and give a reason next to the tick or X.
 
The Dealer said:
I rate via Spursplay and rewind passages of play if I'm not sure. I log each players involvement good or bad and give a reason next to the tick or X.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I remember you posted one of those. And it was a game where dier had made some clumsy decisions but you had no negatives for him. I wanted to point out then, but you were having so much fun in that thread, I just didnt bother. Your ratings are as biased as any one out there.
 
iz futbal said:
I dont believe in silly ratings either but thats unnecessarily mean.

Unless of course this person is saying 'my rating system says this so i am right'. In that case fuck him!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't believe in silly ratings either. I want measured and thoughtful opinions. I have explained how I rate , that's just my way of doing it. Others will have different methods. I wish I could go to every game and then deep dive afterwards.
 
iz futbal said:
I remember you posted one of those. And it was a game where dier had made some clumsy decisions but you had no negatives for him. I wanted to point out then, but you were having so much fun in that thread, I just didnt bother. Your ratings are as biased as any one out there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Excellent, you are challenging my ratings. That's good but specifics would help so that I can track back. I try and stay focused on the play not the player. I might see things differently sometimes thank goodness
 
The Dealer said:
I rate via Spursplay and rewind passages of play if I'm not sure. I log each players involvement good or bad and give a reason next to the tick or X.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The ‘ I was there’ argument is absolutely fucking spurious. Outside of the Super Bowl and a World Cup Final , I’ve probably been to almost every type of major sporting event and TV coverage is better than watching most of them live for overall perception depending on your vantage point . There are obvious exceptions: nothing will beat court side at Centre Court — where you can get a true idea of the speed of the game — or the first couple of rows at a major fight. If you’re in an average seat for most events, like most punters without connections, TV will offer a better view than many of the seats in a 60-100,000 arena or even smaller indoor arenas like MSG.

Of course, the one thing TV can’t provide is the atmosphere of the event no matter how hard it tries and that’s the reason why we go as much as anything else.
 
GeorgeGraham said:
Where are your seats?
If you’re telling me that you a low vantage point seat in the South Stand (as an example) gives you a better vantage point than the TV cameras over the whole pitch then you’re full of it.

I always watch game highlights after I’ve been to the game because of stuff I miss in real time… and I’m not including the various distractions around me at the ground.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeh, I can't imagine too many people in the stadium are aided by action replay either.
 
GeorgeGraham said:
The ‘ I was there’ argument is absolutely fucking spurious. Outside of the Super Bowl and a World Cup Final , I’ve probably been to almost every type of major sporting event and TV coverage is better than watching most of them live for overall perception depending on your vantage point . There are obvious exceptions: nothing will beat court side at Centre Court — where you can get a true idea of the speed of the game — or the first couple of rows at a major fight. If you’re in an average seat for most events, like most punters without connections, TV will offer a better view than many of the seats in a 60-100,000 arena or even smaller indoor arenas like MSG.

Of course, the one thing TV can’t provide is the atmosphere of the event no matter how hard it tries and that’s the reason why we go as much as anything else.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I do understand the overall picture though. What players do off the ball not necessarily on camera. I would welcome that input.
 
TonySoprano said:
The lengths people are going to justify him being a first choice in a position he has no right to be are hilarious.

Which top team would have Dier as their 1st choice centre-back? We all know the answer.

Case closed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think any team that had Davinson, Lenglet and Tanganga as the other options would have him as the first choice. That’s why he plays. We don’t have anyone better than him.

In a squad that had been built properly he would be 4th choice, but that’s not our squad. We have a £40m player who can’t stand up, a fraud on loan from Barca and an academy player who has barely played for 2 years because of injuries. That’s Dier’s competition.

When we have a better player than Dier, he will play less.
 
The Dealer said:
But disecting at length what people write on here to try and prove them wrong is worthwhile. A destructive agenda.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You were just claiming to be promoting debate? .......Now you consider it "destructive" unless it centers around an intent to distill it down to just an arbitrary averaged number?

Imagine you rate something 8 and I rate it to be a 6.... What you gonna do? Discuss and debate it with actual words or break out a calculator?

.......Maybe you think the truth us to be found by concluding that correct answer is 7?

Not for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top