So you're selecting the ratings that are most like your own? Bascially you're fixing your results to support your own rating. You're using your own rating as a template to judge the ratings of others.
Last edited:
-
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...
Performance Player Ratings: Fulham (h) 2-0
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
- Status
Just be happy you are one of the mighty seven.
What a bizarre way that is to represent forum opinion. He just seems to be cherry picking the ratings of the few that are most like his own.
Wrong as usual. I select those that are not ridiculous. I didn't agree with Bonas but selected them as they were ball park.
If ratings are obviously out of step with the general consensus I ignore them. Otherwise a situation arises like we have.....the forum final average being higher than any other. Its not representative as its distorted by the 10 club.
You don't have to take any notice of my data , its a comparison, an alternative to the ridiculous.
Too many 9s. No way Vicario did enough for a 9 and that's reflected in the media. Posto a 9 when he admitted it was our worst half so far in the second half.
Vdv never a 9. I can substantiate that of required with my mark sheet.
Hojbjerg a 7 the same as Kulu, no way.
No it's not.
He wasn't.
A tolerance of 0.50 or even 1.0 is comparable and worthy of discussion.
6.50 is a good performance, he went off early so not a 90 minute contribution. He was getting a bit ragged.
I'm disregarding the incorrect. Selecting the considered and sensible. I could only find 7 and some of those were dodgy, like Bonas.
According to your own data Vicario averaged 7.80 in the media so
McCOYS
rating of 9 for Vicario was only 1.2 off. The media gave PEH a 7.25 average and you gave him a 9 so you were 1.75 off your media average for PEH yet you've considered you own rating as good enough to include but not McCoys?According to your own data Vicario averaged 7.80 in the media so
Excellent work. That's how this thread should operate. Challenge, don't accept shoddy ratings. In this instance the media were wrong on Hojbjerg in my opinion. The McCoy rejection was cumulative, not just one player was wrong.
Pretty good actually.
According to your own data Vicario averaged 7.80 in the media so
Have you rated ?
Did you include any of the ratings posts you've put a 'disagree' to?
Any amalgamated ratings put forward by you are utterly bogus and worthless, as you pre-select those which accord with your own opinion.
You're a bonehead masquerading as a statistician.
Do you want me to publish the chosen few ?
You do realize “the media” rating is an average of numerous media members. Are you going through all of them and then not counting the media members who are too far away from the mean?
No. I couldn't give a flying fuck about your opinions.
- Status