Exactly.
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
- Status
Exactly.
Still his 'ratings' are higher than Son, which is absolutely brainless. Also better than Porro? Its a big pile of randomness.
It's a load of meaningless rubbish.
Son is in the main table, Richi is in the under 25 game table.....there is no comparison.
I think you are focusing on the end of season form, not the whole season.
Are you saying in the whole season where Richarlison has scored 1 goal , he has been better than Porro? Such nonsense.
Isnt it a comparison of averages? You decided to randomly put a 25 games limit and broke the table into 2. But its still an average.
Son played 3 times more minutes but scored 10 times more than Richarlison . Any 'rating system' that says on average Richarlison was betteris utter nonsense.
It's not random at 25, we played 49 games so 25 represents over half.
Ratings are not just about scoring, it's about many factors. But Richi does not qualify to compare with Son based on too few games. Son has been poor this season we know that.
The ratings are not mine, they are collated from many sources including this forum. It's not my ratings or my opinion.
Feel free to question the meaning of the ratings but please don't imply they are mine.
The under 25 game table players can be compared with each other to an extent. But under 25 games is not representative of a full season and the reasons why they only played a limited number need scrutiny....why so ? Were they injured ? Were they back up squad players not getting regular minutes. Did they join in January and are not fully integrated ?
There are reasons for lower ratings or lower number of games. That's what this forum is for.....discussion.
I will try and answer questions about ratings but let's not make it about attempting to discredit the validity, polite and mature discussion will determine possible answers.
There are reasons for lower ratings or lower number of games. That's what this forum is for.....discussion.
I will try and answer questions about ratings but let's not make it about attempting to discredit the validity, polite and mature discussion will determine possible answers.
Any ratings system comparing Son to Richi would be nonsense which is why the 2 players are in different tables.
I dont think these are your ratings either. I trust you not to be ridiculous enough to believe Richarlison on average was better than Son. But the ratings are trash.
Richarlison played enough for us to see he was much worse than Son and definitely much worse than Porro. If you believe otherwise, there isnt much to say.
How many more times....from a ratings point of view....Son and Richi can't be compared. That's why they are in different tables !!
I will look into the specifics between Porro and Richi. But seriously both playing so few games, it's unrepresentative data over such a small sample of games. Which is why there is a separate table. I could have excluded them all together but thought posters would want the data.
So you will compare someone who has played 1 match with 24 matches, but not 24 matches and 25 matches because the way you randomly broke up the table means they cant be compared.
Even with your randomly broken table, the fact that Richarlison finishes ahead of Porro and Skipp just tells us enough about the 'rating system'. Its garbage. Again I dont think you are stupid enough to think all these numbers make sense. Its just some nerdy fun you are having and maybe I should just let you have your fun instead of criticizing.
I excluded any bit part players in the under 25 game table....like Tanganga. The under 25 table is open to interpretation and discussion which is what we are doing.
I will put up detailed Richi and Porro ratings tomorrow. But just quickly I note Porro had a terrible start and the ratings reflect that. He has improved ( but sporadically ), the damage was done to his overall average with not enough games to increase it.
The under 25 games table spans 11 to 23 games. Not sure where the suggestion of 1 to 24 comes from !!
Again I reiterate the tables are not randomly split. 49 games played, above half is 25. Why keep using the word random ? It's clear.
- Status