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...
The ratings I have disagreed with are nonsense, not me disagreeing with them. I am trying to make posters think harder about their ratings that are clearly wrong.
He’s trying to sabotage the thread because no one participated in his shit ratings thread.
You're ruining this thread too.
...and the end product is another ratings thread spoiled. Shame.He doesn't even post his own ratings.
Just agrees with a few people each week (even if they are quite different ratings to each other) and disagrees with dozens on a quick glance.
Then posts this trollop as though it means something.. we can only assume that this media average in their opinion is more correct than the forum average.
Yet when you break it down, the media average, his agree average, disagree average and total forum average all follow a strikingly similar correlation (with the exception of Davies), albeit starting from a 1-2 point higher 'base line'.
What this poster doesn't like is to see high ratings for players. He thinks it's 'more correct' that player ratings start from a lower base line but doesn't consider the ratings relative to other player ratings.
So disagrees to make a point they don't quite understand what point they're trying to make themselves fully - hence they are an idiot.
If you rate any player 9+ this moron will click disagree. It's as simple as that.
Having gone through their agrees / disagrees, I can't find an exception to this rule.
He doesn't even post his own ratings.
Just agrees with a few people each week (even if they are quite different ratings to each other) and disagrees with dozens on a quick glance.
Then posts this trollop as though it means something.. we can only assume that this media average in their opinion is more correct than the forum average.
Yet when you break it down, the media average, his agree average, disagree average and total forum average all follow a strikingly similar correlation (with the exception of Davies), albeit starting from a 1-2 point higher 'base line'.
What this poster doesn't like is to see high ratings for players. He thinks it's 'more correct' that player ratings start from a lower base line but doesn't consider the ratings relative to other player ratings.
So disagrees to make a point they don't quite understand what point they're trying to make themselves fully - hence they are an idiot.
If you rate any player 9+ this moron will click disagree. It's as simple as that.
Having gone through their agrees / disagrees, I can't find an exception to this rule.
Yet the Ratings-Nazi proves his own compiled stats are utterly flawed cos he only includes those who agree with him.
What a shit show ego-fest.
He doesn't even post his own ratings.
Just agrees with a few people each week (even if they are quite different ratings to each other) and disagrees with dozens on a quick glance.
Then posts this trollop as though it means something.. we can only assume that this media average in their opinion is more correct than the forum average.
Yet when you break it down, the media average, his agree average, disagree average and total forum average all follow a strikingly similar correlation (with the exception of Davies), albeit starting from a 1-2 point higher 'base line'.
What this poster doesn't like is to see high ratings for players. He thinks it's 'more correct' that player ratings start from a lower base line but doesn't consider the ratings relative to other player ratings.
So disagrees to make a point they don't quite understand what point they're trying to make themselves fully - hence they are an idiot.
If you rate any player 9+ this moron will click disagree. It's as simple as that.
Having gone through their agrees / disagrees, I can't find an exception to this rule.
