Player Ratings: Crystal Palace (h) 3-1

[Billy Bob mate]

Postecoglou: 10
Vicario: 10
Royal: 10
Romero: 10
Udogie: 10
van de Ven: 10
Højbjerg: 10
Sarr: 10
Bissouma: 10
Maddison: 10
Lo Celso: 10
Bentancur: 10
Son: 10
Kulusevski: 10
Scarlett: 10
Johnson: 10
Werner: 10



Submit your ratings | View match averages | View season averages

 

[Atomic knob]

Royal: 1

 

[mummy]

I don't include dumb ratings in my system.

Who decides if the ratings are dumb? You do. What if you're dumb and you don't realise it?

 

[Nuttynoah]

Postecoglou: 8
Vicario: 7.5
Royal: 8
Romero: 8
Udogie: 7.5
van de Ven: 8.5
Højbjerg: 7
Sarr: 7
Bissouma: 8
Maddison: 8
Lo Celso: 7
Bentancur: 7.5
Son: 8
Kulusevski: 7.5
Scarlett: 7
Johnson: 8
Werner: 8



Submit your ratings | View match averages | View season averages

 

[cretinousgoat]

Postecoglou: 8
Vicario: 7
Royal: 7
Romero: 8
Udogie: 7
van de Ven: 9
Højbjerg: 7
Sarr: 7
Bissouma: 8
Maddison: 7
Bentancur: 6
Son: 7
Kulusevski: 6
Johnson: 7
Werner: 8



Submit your ratings | View match averages | View season averages

 

[Billy Bob mate]

What would the reason be for hiding ones ratings?

Ummm...maybe people don't want to be told that their view is incorrect because it's 0.42 lower/higher than what 7 media ratings say?

 

[Billy Bob mate]

I can't see you ever having that problem

At least we all know mine are taking the piss.

If I posted genuine ratings, only to be told that they're 'not valid' cos certain people can't see how/why I would vote that way, then I'd rightly be pissed off.

 

[Matt1882]

I never have and never will give a shit what others rate players as.

 

[Billy Bob mate]

Exactly why your system to rate players overall is massively flawed. Dumb ratings by dumb people aren't a useful tool.

But what if the dumb people score consistently...like say gives everyone a 10 when we win?

Is all good then no?

 

[Doom Funk]

Postecoglou: 8
Vicario: 7.5
Royal: 8
Romero: 8
Udogie: 7.5
van de Ven: 8.5
Højbjerg: 7
Sarr: 7
Bissouma: 8
Maddison: 8
Lo Celso: 7
Bentancur: 7.5
Son: 8
Kulusevski: 7.5
Scarlett: 7
Johnson: 8
Werner: 8



Submit your ratings | View match averages | View season averages

8 for bissouma ?

I really do wonder what people are watching sometimes

 

[Dudski]

Postecoglou: 7
Vicario: 6.5
Royal: 6
Romero: 7
Udogie: 6.5
van de Ven: 7.5
Højbjerg: 6
Sarr: 6
Bissouma: 6
Maddison: 6.5
Lo Celso: 5.5
Bentancur: 6
Son: 7
Kulusevski: 6.5
Scarlett: 6
Johnson: 6
Werner: 7

Interesting match. Usually someone stands out more clearly from the rest. Nobody was awful, but nobody other than perhaps van de Ven was all that good. Gave a 7 to Postecoglou because when a team keeps its composure after a bad start and comes back you figure that's down to how he has the team practicing and playing.

Submit your ratings | View match averages | View season averages

 

[Dudski]

Postecoglou: 5.5
Vicario: 6.5
Royal: 7.5
Romero: 8
Udogie: 7
van de Ven: 9
Højbjerg: 7
Sarr: 6.5
Bissouma: 7
Maddison: 8
Lo Celso: 6
Bentancur: 6.5
Son: 7
Kulusevski: 6
Scarlett: 5.5
Johnson: 7.5
Werner: 7

Van De Ven MOTM followed closely by Romero.

Not that we were threatened much though

Submit your ratings | View match averages | View season averages

Good point on Romero. How good Romero and van de Ven were is reflected by the fact that I have almost no memory of Vicario being in the match.

 

[zin]

I count 34 ratings including 2 joke ones that should have been vetted out. But it shows 38 ratings for Vicario for example. There are only 32 acceptable ratings if the all 10s and the Royal getting a 1 were excluded. I don't understand where the 38 comes from.

Posting ratings is optional, just because they aren't in the thread doesn't mean someone didn't submit theirs.

 

[The Dealer]

Kulusevski ranging from 3 to 8 !!

 

[Doom Funk]

Ummm...maybe people don't want to be told that their view is incorrect because it's 0.42 lower/higher than what 7 media ratings say?

I can't see you ever having that problem

 

[The Dealer]

Ummm...maybe people don't want to be told that their view is incorrect because it's 0.42 lower/higher than what 7 media ratings say?

Awwwww ! poor little darlings. Grow some balls and be accountable.

 

[The Dealer]

At least we all know mine are taking the piss.

If I posted genuine ratings, only to be told that they're 'not valid' cos certain people can't see how/why I would vote that way, then I'd rightly be pissed off.

Then you have a low tolerance threshold and need to grow up.

 

[Billy Bob mate]

Then you have a low tolerance threshold and need to grow up.

Or...

...you can start accepting that how people watch football games is subjective.

Some will think player X had a good game while others will think he didn't.

Some will appreciate the contribution of player y more than someone else will.

Some lean towards attacking players being more influential than defenders so score accordingly.

Your issue is, and has always been, that everyone should watch and score the game how you see it which is obviously bollocks.

I genuinely think these ratings threads add value to this site and, to be fair, the analysis you post shows that the forum collectively scores pretty well.

It's just a shame every single one has to be spoilt by your nonsense.

 

[The Dealer]

Or...

...you can start accepting that how people watch football games is subjective.

Some will think player X had a good game while others will think he didn't.

Some will appreciate the contribution of player y more than someone else will.

Some lean towards attacking players being more influential than defenders so score accordingly.

Your issue is, and has always been, that everyone should watch and score the game how you see it which is obviously bollocks.

I genuinely think these ratings threads add value to this site and, to be fair, the analysis you post shows that the forum collectively scores pretty well.

It's just a shame every single one has to be spoilt by your nonsense.

My nonsense!! and you think the thread worthwhile by rating all 10s. You are contradicting yourself.
I am genuinely trying to improve the thread and have done by pushing for 0.5 increments.
I also exclude joke ratings with an alternative comparison.
You are a disruption to the thread.

 

[Billy Bob mate]

My nonsense!! and you think the thread worthwhile by rating all 10s. You are contradicting yourself.
I am genuinely trying to improve the thread and have done by pushing for 0.5 increments.
I also exclude joke ratings with an alternative comparison.
You are a disruption to the thread.