Player Ratings: Crystal Palace (a) 1-2

  • 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!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Château NoHo said:
Bias can skew data at either end of a scale.

Removing a certain (arbitrary), equal amount (set) of highest AND lowest ratings for each player would minimize some fuckery (at either end of the scale) by reducing and extracting outliers.

As long as it's consistent across the board, obviously.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It's standard practice. But that's not what's going on here - not by any stretch of the imagination. What's going on here is weird, deluded and quite pathetic control freakery.
 
Mampi said:
I haven't seen this data, which can't be exact data.

But I did already ask you to clarify why you would agree with posts that had quite varied player ratings, disagree with posts that had more similar ratings, and to acknowledge the relevance of relative ratings against the rest of the team.

You replied with fuck all of use, as usual. Just an attempt at being patronising whilst appearing a clown to most that bother to read these rating threads.
Click to expand...

All the data is there to ascertain if a rating is out of sync. Its up to the poster to review their own ratings and decide if there is a significant difference and reason for it. I will be doing my own review of my ratings later, as I have done before.
 
Billy Hunt said:
Absolutely. It's standard practice. But that's not what's going on here - not by any stretch of the imagination. What's going on here is weird, deluded and quite pathetic control freakery.
Click to expand...

That's your warped interpretation of it. All I'm doing is flagging up potential inaccuracies within ratings. I could be wrong with those disagrees, so prove I am by justifying the rating.
 
The Dealer said:
All the data is there to ascertain if a rating is out of sync. Its up to the poster to review their own ratings and decide if there is a significant difference and reason for it. I will be doing my own review of my ratings later, as I have done before.
Click to expand...
Dodged actually answering again. Just backs up you're trolling.
The Dealer said:
That's your warped interpretation of it. All I'm doing is flagging up potential inaccuracies within ratings. I could be wrong with those disagrees, so prove I am by justifying the rating.
Click to expand...
It's on you to justify the disagrees. You think scrolling through glancing briefly and disagreeing with dozens of ratings posts warrants those posters to all come back and justify their individual ratings to you?

Can you not see why you have got that completely the wrong way round? You spend 30 seconds clicking disagree wildly then would expect hours of man hours in responses?

Think about your ridiculousness.
 
Here is a review of my ratings for this match.

Vicario I gave a 7 the pure forum 8.16, the selected forum and media/ web was 7.27.
Porro 6, 6.84 and 6.42
Romero 7.5, 8.39 and 7.72
Vdv 8, 8.93 and 8.07
Davies 5.5, 5.68, 5.45
Bissouma 6, 6.63, 6.37
Sarr 8, 7.87, 7.42
Madds 7.5, 7.82, 7.47
Kulusevski 6, 6.46, 6.17
Son 7, 7.67, 7.25
Richi 6, 5.82, 5.82
Royal 6.5, 6.94, 6.40
Johnson 7, 7.29, 6.75

I'm out of sync on Vicario against the pure forum but not the combined rating.
Same for Romero.
Vdv.
To a lesser extent Porro, Biss, Kulu and Son.

In all cases I think I am lower than the pure forum ratings.
So maybe I've been too harsh or the forum too exuberant ? The combined selected 10 and media/ web might give a clue. !!
 
The Dealer said:
Romero mark sheet.
First half....Poor pass lost ball, good pass, good defending, again, again.
Second half....
good defending, poor pass, good defensive header, good defending, poor defending for goal ( potentially too passive, stood and watched ) , lastly a poor pass.

The goal issue I could be wrong on but he seemed static. But there are a number of negatives in there which challenges the notion he didn't put a foot wrong.
Click to expand...
Where did I say Romero didn’t put a foot wrong?
I was actually talking about Van de Ven not putting a foot wrong so perhaps read posts a bit more carefully before criticising them. Many thanks in advance for your imminent apology!

:dierno:
 
Last edited:
The Dealer said:
Here is a review of my ratings for this match.

Vicario I gave a 7 the pure forum 8.16, the selected forum and media/ web was 7.27.
Porro 6, 6.84 and 6.42
Romero 7.5, 8.39 and 7.72
Vdv 8, 8.93 and 8.07
Davies 5.5, 5.68, 5.45
Bissouma 6, 6.63, 6.37
Sarr 8, 7.87, 7.42
Madds 7.5, 7.82, 7.47
Kulusevski 6, 6.46, 6.17
Son 7, 7.67, 7.25
Richi 6, 5.82, 5.82
Royal 6.5, 6.94, 6.40
Johnson 7, 7.29, 6.75

I'm out of sync on Vicario against the pure forum but not the combined rating.
Same for Romero.
Vdv.
To a lesser extent Porro, Biss, Kulu and Son.

In all cases I think I am lower than the pure forum ratings.
So maybe I've been too harsh or the forum too exuberant ? The combined selected 10 and media/ web might give a clue. !!
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
A review of my first disagree on this match ratings.

The poster gave Posto a 9, me a 7. It was a poor performance and we scraped past a poor Palace side.
Vicario was given an 8.5, the combi rating was 7.27.

Royal an 8, combi 6.40
Porro 8 and 6.42
Romero 9 and 7.72
Davies 7.5 and 5.45
Vdv 9.5 and 8.07
Hojbjerg 8.5 and 6.55
Son 9 and 7.25

I disagreed with the ratings because in my opinion they were too high and 20 ratings from Media/ web and selected forum ratings of some quality back this up.

2nd disagree
Vicario 10 combi 7.27
Romero 9.5....7.72
Vdv...........10.....8.07

3rd disagree
Posto 9.....7.80
Porro 8.....6.42
Romero 9...7.72
Vdv .......10...8.07
Sarr........9.5...7.42
Bissouma..7.5...6.37
Bentancur 8.5....?
Son.............9.....7.25
Richi..........3......5.82

4th disagee
Vicario 9....7.27
Vdv.......9.5..8.07
Son.......8.5..7.25
Madds.8.5..7.47

5th
Posto 9....7.80
Romero 9..7.72
Davies 8...5.45
Vdv......9.....8.07
Hojbjerg 8.5, 6.55
Son ......8.5....7.25
Maddison 8.5...7.47
Bissouma 8.5...6.37

6th
Posto 9....7.80
Vicario 9...7.27
Kulusevski 7.5...6.17

7th
Posto 9....7.80
Vicario 9...7.27
Royal...8....6.40
Davies...7...5.45
Vdv.....9.5....8.07
Bissouma 7.5...6.37
Son.............9....7.25

That's enough. I should add that it's just me disagreeing but backing it up with 20 ratings suggesting a significant disparity.
 
Last edited:
The Dealer said:
A review of my first disagree on this match ratings.

The poster gave Posto a 9, me a 7. It was a poor performance and we scraped past a poor Palace side.
Vicario was given an 8.5, the combi rating was 7.27.

Royal an 8, combi 6.40
Porro 8 and 6.42
Romero 9 and 7.72
Davies 7.5 and 5.45
Vdv 9.5 and 8.07
Hojbjerg 8.5 and 6.55
Son 9 and 7.25

I disagreed with the ratings because in my opinion they were too high and 20 ratings from Media/ web and selected forum ratings of some quality back this up.
Click to expand...

You choose not to recognise goal saving and scoring influences as much as others do.
That's fine and up to you, but it doesn't mean they're wrong. The game is decided by goals scored and conceded, not successful progressive middle third passes or whatever field tilt bullshit you might use.

If you want an algorithm with normalised ratings across the board, keeping everyone within 5.5-7.5, just use this which will be far better than whatever you are coming up with.

Crystal Palace 1-2 Tottenham - Premier League 2023/2024 Live

Crystal Palace-Tottenham live incidents, goals, cards, substitutions, lineups, statistics, formations
www.whoscored.com www.whoscored.com

Starting 11 received rating ranges from 6.5-7.3, a mere 0.8 difference from best to worst.
Saves you some time.
 
Mampi said:
You choose not to recognise goal saving and scoring influences as much as others do.
That's fine and up to you, but it doesn't mean they're wrong. The game is decided by goals scored and conceded, not successful progressive middle third passes or whatever field tilt bullshit you might use.

If you want an algorithm with normalised ratings across the board, keeping everyone within 5.5-7.5, just use this which will be far better than whatever you are coming up with.

Crystal Palace 1-2 Tottenham - Premier League 2023/2024 Live

Crystal Palace-Tottenham live incidents, goals, cards, substitutions, lineups, statistics, formations
www.whoscored.com www.whoscored.com

Starting 11 received rating ranges from 6.5-7.3, a mere 0.8 difference from best to worst.
Saves you some time.
Click to expand...

I don't want a 5.5 to 7.5 range. I gave 2 8s for this match and 2 9s an 8.5 and an 8 in the previous game.
 
The Dealer said:
A review of my first disagree on this match ratings.

The poster gave Posto a 9, me a 7. It was a poor performance and we scraped past a poor Palace side.
Vicario was given an 8.5, the combi rating was 7.27.

Royal an 8, combi 6.40
Porro 8 and 6.42
Romero 9 and 7.72
Davies 7.5 and 5.45
Vdv 9.5 and 8.07
Hojbjerg 8.5 and 6.55
Son 9 and 7.25

I disagreed with the ratings because in my opinion they were too high and 20 ratings from Media/ web and selected forum ratings of some quality back this up.
Click to expand...
What number equates to a 'poor' performance in your personal ratings system?
 
I think it's fair to say that some players ratings are heavily influenced by the relationship said player has with forum members. Such rateings reflect that but, telling members how to feel or vote is just off, Shirley?

Anyway, and regardless of all that, I'm pretty sure the boss said he runs a script to weed out so called 'personal bias'?
 
One more thing, pessing the disagree button in many cases detracts from dialogue, which for the most part, takes away the very essence of the word forum. Go figure
 
5purs said:
One more thing, pessing the disagree button in many cases detracts from dialogue, which for the most part, takes away the very essence of the word forum. Go figure
Click to expand...

Very few comment on these ratings threads. It's mostly a case of rate and run !! I have detailed my disagrees for the first one and might do a couple more, by that time most of the players in question should have been covered.
 
5purs said:
I think it's fair to say that some players ratings are heavily influenced by the relationship said player has with forum members. Such rateings reflect that but, telling members how to feel or vote is just off, Shirley?

Anyway, and regardless of all that, I'm pretty sure the boss said he runs a script to weed out so called 'personal bias'?
Click to expand...

When he can be asked or gets around to it !! No guarantees.
 
The Dealer said:
I accept its not an exact science but surely its better to strive for quality in the first place. Then a reasonably representative indication of performance is possible. Giving 10s to everyone won't achieve the above...Will it ?
Click to expand...

This is disingenuous.......... You 'X' and disregard plenty of other people's ratings that aren't parodies too.


Your figures are BS cos you're doctoring them to suit your personal opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom