Not sure if this is useful, but probably worth some debate (apols if already done elsewhere).
One issue that has been raised by the Swindon Players Rating thread is that everyone can have a different view of a players performance (I refer to the Revell Rating argument). However, to enable meaningful comparison it would seem that we should not have a different scale of measurement.
For example, rating a player as a "4" ought to mean something consistent to everyone. The debate would then be "does the player merit a 4 or a 6" for example. This would allow for quantitative debate.
I'm sure this is wrong, but as a thought starter - and with a view to getting a scoring protocol that we can all agree - how about:
Player Rating:
10 - outstanding contribution throughout the game, best player on the pitch by some margin, outstanding skills (given the division) and performance could not be improved upon.
9 - magnificent game, stand out performance. Player at the top of his game.
8 - influential performance at a high standard throughout the match.
7 - telling performance with noteworthy spells.
6 - steady match. As you would expect, but only occasionally more than that.
5 - failed to contribute noticeably. No obvious or critical lapses.
4 - performed below par and made some noteable errors during the game.
3 - poor game with critical lapses and overall lack of contribution.
2 - very poor game. Major errors and no redeeming play.
1 - extremely poor game. An all time bad performance littered with errors and some major mistakes.
0 - a stinker of a game. Not only failed to contribute at all and made numerous catastrophic errors, but would have been better to have no player at all.
Couple of points. You could argue that 10 is perfection and therefore can never be obtained, but in this type of scoring system it is useful to regard 10/10 as something just less than perfection. It then becomes a meaningful, if extremely rare, score. Equally, you need to have 0 as an option or you might as well score from 1 to 10. But again, this would be exceptional.
The tendency is for people to actually mark players between 3 and 9. Hopefully an agreed protocol would help NSC'ers who want to genuinely reflect a performance and be able to compare their views meaningfully.
It might also stop some of the squabbling about giving a player 0. On this scale, would Revell have scored 0 on Saturday in anyone's opinion? Surely the most one-eyed Revell-hater who thought he'd had a bad game would have to give him more than 0?
Open for debate - I'd be happy to use an agreed scoring system.
One issue that has been raised by the Swindon Players Rating thread is that everyone can have a different view of a players performance (I refer to the Revell Rating argument). However, to enable meaningful comparison it would seem that we should not have a different scale of measurement.
For example, rating a player as a "4" ought to mean something consistent to everyone. The debate would then be "does the player merit a 4 or a 6" for example. This would allow for quantitative debate.
I'm sure this is wrong, but as a thought starter - and with a view to getting a scoring protocol that we can all agree - how about:
Player Rating:
10 - outstanding contribution throughout the game, best player on the pitch by some margin, outstanding skills (given the division) and performance could not be improved upon.
9 - magnificent game, stand out performance. Player at the top of his game.
8 - influential performance at a high standard throughout the match.
7 - telling performance with noteworthy spells.
6 - steady match. As you would expect, but only occasionally more than that.
5 - failed to contribute noticeably. No obvious or critical lapses.
4 - performed below par and made some noteable errors during the game.
3 - poor game with critical lapses and overall lack of contribution.
2 - very poor game. Major errors and no redeeming play.
1 - extremely poor game. An all time bad performance littered with errors and some major mistakes.
0 - a stinker of a game. Not only failed to contribute at all and made numerous catastrophic errors, but would have been better to have no player at all.
Couple of points. You could argue that 10 is perfection and therefore can never be obtained, but in this type of scoring system it is useful to regard 10/10 as something just less than perfection. It then becomes a meaningful, if extremely rare, score. Equally, you need to have 0 as an option or you might as well score from 1 to 10. But again, this would be exceptional.
The tendency is for people to actually mark players between 3 and 9. Hopefully an agreed protocol would help NSC'ers who want to genuinely reflect a performance and be able to compare their views meaningfully.
It might also stop some of the squabbling about giving a player 0. On this scale, would Revell have scored 0 on Saturday in anyone's opinion? Surely the most one-eyed Revell-hater who thought he'd had a bad game would have to give him more than 0?
Open for debate - I'd be happy to use an agreed scoring system.
Last edited by a moderator:
