This is my Top XI: 334; Szczęsny; Akanji, Bastoni, Ake; Barella, Fabian Ruiz, Stanciu; Guler, Musiala, Gakpo, Bellingham.
my best XI first round A Verbruggen- Kimmich, Dragusin , Ake, T. Hernandez- Kroos, Fabian Ruiz, Musiala, Barella, Gakpo - Mikautadze B Maignan- Carvajal, S. Akaydin, Milenkovic, Janza - Rice, Lobotka, Man, Gundogan, Wirtz-Morata C Szczesny - Muldur, Nacho, Bijol, Hancko - Kante, Kocharashvili, A.Guler, Stanciu, Yamal-Dragusin Team average rating 1.GER 6.46 2.ESP 5.93 3.NED 5.84 4.FRA 5.77 5.SUI 5.43 6.SVK 5.38 7.ITA 5.38 8.ENG 5.38 9.ROU 5.27 10.AUT 5.21 11.TUR 5.15 12.POR 5.08 13.DAN 5.00 14.GEO 4.93 15.CRO 4.87 16.SLO 4.86 17.SER 4.82 18.POL 4.80 19.BEL 4.77 20.ALB 4.64 21.CZE 4.47 22.HUN 4.40 23.UKR 4.27 24.SCO 3.93
Always good to interact with you, PDG. Stanek (the Czechia keeper) had a lot of butter fingers last night and had huge trouble holding onto the ball and parrying it all sorts of wrong directions (as mentioned by Robyn Cowen last night in ITV commentary booth). I think it had a lot to do with the heavy rain and the very wet ball. If Czechia tested Diogo Costa more on the other end, I would say the Portuguese keeper wouldn't look too good either. It is interesting that other than Szczesny, other Eastern European keepers seem to have trouble holding onto the ball with the hands in the first match (Lunin vs Romania, Dubravka vs Belgium, Gulacsi vs Switzerland, even Livakovic to a degree against Spain).
Kante won the official man of the match so at least his efforts have been recognised (and well deserved).
Personally I had some trouble finding great right-back performances this round (or at least not at the level of other positions). Muldur from Turkey has that excellent goal but I found him somewhat anonymous most of the match and not quite solid on the defensive. Same can be said with Carvajal. Agree there with Aebischer on the left back. Certainly can't go wrong with him even though he played quite centrally. Yildiz and Roland Sallai also worth a shout. Denmark vs Slovenia is a good game in that both teams played 2 real large strikers and it is so interesting to see a clash of styles in supporting 2 large strikers (Sesko, Sporar, Wind, Hojlund) in the side. Denmark's heavy running and pressing compensated for the lack of mobility up front while Slovenia's center backs did an excellent job expanding their defensive zones and covering 2v2 without a spare man or sacrificing midfield numbers. So yes, Wind is the best player out of the 4 although I thought Sporar played decently and Sesko had that amazing moment of hitting the iron from far out. Regarding Saliba, I thought he had a lot of trouble playing on his off-side (i.e. right-footed defender playing left center-back). His technique and passing weren't really utilized well there (I think at 84:40 he miskicked and allowed Wimmer to get in behind him, forcing Kante to make a chase and stop the attack). Due to his right footedness he couldn't really generate much passing and build up on the left and had to play diagonal balls to Dembele on the right. This forced Theo Hernandez to charge forward and dribble instead, which I think may not be the best use of his talent.
BBC.com is putting up ratings for all the games, but I'm becoming more and more convinced not to take them into account. The big differences between the averages from other sources are often huge, and some ratings seem absurd to me, far removed from what I've seen. If someone takes a look and gives his or her opinion... https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/live/cy99107knekt#Switzerland
That's exactly how I started looking. When I saw that they published ratings for the opening match and the Spain vs Croatia match, I thought they would do it for all the matches, but if you look at it, they only did it for 5 matches, maybe the ones of the teams they consider more dangerous... With The Guardian and The Independent something similar happened to me. The good news is that you can also see the ones published by Kicker. https://www.kicker.de/europameisterschaft/topspieler/2024/1
It's probable those are 'user-generated' (public votes) that can even happen before the end of the match too. That's how they do it for Premier League games now, and often the winning team has many good ratings and the losing team many bad ones almost by default. I don't know why they started doing that. Public votes on some things in football magazines can be interesting for example, but yes these grades turn into nonsense probably (it is not the journalist grades anyway though I'm pretty sure).
The second day of these Europeans has begun. Musiala's good start continues as he shares the top ranking this evening with teammates Gundogan and Neuer. The Barcelona midfielder confirms his average of 7.5.
This is the problem I have with newspaper (human) ratings. Make this sense: Croatia 2-2 Albania I haven't calculated averages, but per GdS Croatia has 7 players with 6+ ratings while Albania has 12. Based on that alone one would say Albania was a better team that match. Here are some stats from sofascore tho: Average team ratings: Croatia - 7.28 Albania - 6.89 XG: Croatia 2.69-1.36 Albania Basically all other stats like shots, posession, pressure, etc. are all in Croatia's favor as well. I mean, okay you can argue those are just stats which dont tell a full story and Albania was more effective, efficient or whatever... but then we come to performances of other teams on the same day: For example, Hungary has 7 players rated 6+ as well in a 2-0 loss with less xG created (1.01) and more xG conceded (1.48) than Croatia while being inferior in all other stats. Sofascore has Germany at 7.38 and Hungary at 6.62. Clearly not the same standard is applied largerly because Hungary was a huge underdog. Again, let's say that is somehow fine. Furthermore, Switzerland played Scotland which is comparable to Albania and ended a 50-50 match (based on xG, posessions, shots and other stats) with 1-1 scoreline. Sofascore gives Scotland 6.85 and 6.80 to Switzerland. How many 6+ rated players Switzerland had? 11. Eleven!! It doesnt make sense at all. It is clearly an inconsistent and subjective application of criteria. All teams and players have certain expectations for their performance and rather than all of them being compared and evaluated based on a consistent standard, they are evaluated based on subjective, amorphous expectations.
Since I posted the TNT Sports ones before, I'll continue with those (I guess it will save Titanlux some time for example too): Scotland 1-1 Switzerland - Scotland still alive at Euro 2024 after nerve-wracking draw with Switzerland - TNT Sports Scotland: Gunn 8, Ralston 5, Hendry 6, Hanley 7, Tierney 6, Robertson 7, McGregor 6, Gilmour 7, McGinn 7, McTominay 7, Adam 6. Subs: McKenna 6, McLean 6, Shankland N/A, Christie N/A. Switzerland: Sommer 6, Rodriguez 7, Akanji 7, Schar 5, Aebischer 6, Xhaka 6, Freuler 6, Widmer 6, Vargas 6, Ndoye 6, Shaqiri 7. Subs: Embolo 6, Rieder 6, Sierro 6. Croatia 2-2 Albania - Klaus Gjasula scores dramatic late equaliser after own-goal to snatch draw against Croatia - TNT Sports CROATIA: Livakovic 6, Juranovic 7, Sutalo 6, Gvardiol 6, Perisic 7, Modric 7, Brozovic 5, Kovacic 7, Majer 5, Petkovic 6, Kramaric 7. Subs: Pasalic 7, Sucic 7, Budimir 7, Sosa n/a, Baturina n/a. ALBANIA: Strakosha 8, Hysaj 7, Ajeti 7, Djimsiti 7, Mitaj 7, Ramadani 7, Asllani 7, Laçi 7, Asani 7, Manaj 7, Bajrami 7. Subs: Seferi 6, Gjasulu 7, Hoxha n/a, Daku n/a. Germany 2-0 Hungary - Jamal Musiala and Ilkay Gundogan ensure Germany stay perfect with comfortable win - TNT Sports GERMANY: Neuer 6, Kimmich 7, Rudiger 6, Tah 6, Mittelstadt 7, Andrich 6, Kroos 8, Musiala 7, Gundogan 7, Wirtz 5, Havertz 6. Subs: Sane 6, Fullkrug 6, Can 6, Fuhrich 6, Undav N/A HUNGARY: Gulacsi 5, Fiola 6, Orban 6, Dardai, 6, Kerkez 5, Schafer 6, Nagy 5, Bolla 5, Sallai 6, Szoboszlai 5, Varga 5. Subs: Kleinheisler 6, Adam 6, Nagy 6, Gazdag N/A, Csoboth N/A I spotted a Goal.com page with Germany vs Hungary ratings while I was searching for that last one, so I wonder whether Goal.com has ratings for all games too by the way. I wasn't really envisioning continuing with 'entertainment' ratings myself, and I think I've not really seen quite near to enough of the games (it should be pretty much every minute in theory to make a true rating be it for players or entertainment) but I reckon it could be another two 6.5s I'd go with, plus a 7 (for Croatia vs Albania) if I was to give a verdict on that for yesterday too....
Human evaluations are based a lot on the subjectivity of the moment and take into account the strength of the national team that is facing each other. I'll give you an example: Albania – Croatia. The Croatians are logically favored against the eagles who have participated in this event maybe twice in their history (?). So if Croatia - Albania ends up with a result of 2-2, the human takes into account the feat achieved by the Albanian players and influences their ratings positively and negatively on the Croatian players, even if they played better on the pitch. Sofascore, on the other hand, takes into account who plays better, regardless of the difference in level of the two teams facing each other.
I kind of agree with this, except in a way the final sentence (in theory of course match ratings the 'traditional way' don't have to have any underdog bias either but I mean I agree they often will). I don't think we can say Sofascore's ratings exactly reflect who played better, just the result of a formula based on completing a set of actions (without any evaluation of the quality used to do it, although there may be some 'advanced' aspect beyond the main stats shown that might reflect things like pre-assists, value added in actions etc...but I'm not sure).
Perhaps for example the media rating by GdS for Kimmich or by TNT for Wirtz could have been a bit more generous, also for Galaci arguably?, but the Sofascore rating for Orban might be missing some nuances that the journalist can pick up on legitimately and so that ends surprisingly high (it seems like I'm constantly downplaying the Hungarian defenders now lol: I'll adjust that by saying at least I felt that the wing-back Bolla was doing pretty well myself at least in the 1st half, and that Kerkes had a fairly good game, especially in the 2nd half, in the game vs Switzerland....but yeah Orban made some apparent misjudgements etc last night that perhaps don't register in any specific way with Sofascore?)....
No problem mate: I hope I didn't write it in too harsh a way too anyway (I just felt like it was a relevant thing to say; anyway it's good you can clarify your own idea because of my post too I guess!).
I have finally decided to eliminate the BBC.com ratings, as I sincerely believe that they would unnecessarily "contaminate" the averages of the other more reliable sources. I wanted to do a more serious statistical study to decide whether to take it into account or not, calculating the general deviation, but I didn't need to. I have only noticed some very clear cases in which the grade given on that website is exaggeratedly higher or lower than the average of the rest. As I am watching all the games, I can't doubt that the most unfair rating belongs to the ones offered by the mentioned website. Such is the case with De Bruyne, Brozovic, Modric, Hojlund, Janza, Van Dijk, Barella and Mudrick, to name a few of the most obvious. Finalmente he decidido eliminar los ratings de BBC.com, pues creo, sinceramente, que "contaminarían" innecesariamente los promedios del resto de fuentes más fiables. Quería hacer un estudio estadístico más serio para decidirme por tenerla en cuenta o no, calculando la desviación general, pero no me ha hecho falta. Tan solo me he fijado en algunos casos clarísimos en los que la nota que se da en esa web es exageradamente mayor o menor que el promedio del resto. Como estoy viendo todos los partidos, no puedo dudar de que la calificación más injusta pertenece a las ofrecidas por la web citada. Tal es el caso de De Bruyne, Brozovic, Modric, Hojlund, Janza, Van Dijk, Barella y Mudrick, por citar algunos de los más evidentes.
Yes, basically they are conducting a 'public survey' of anybody who wants to 'vote' on their website (like I said, opening the voting before the end of matches I think too). Lots of people will give very high grades out of 10 to players and lots will give very low grades to players too. It is not comparable to traditional journalist-based voting, and I completely agree that the scores shouldn't be included in your analysis. In the old days the BBC website did used to show grades generated by journalists I remember (more akin to the TNT sports ones for example), but not anymore it seems.
Serious question: do you have an idea why England seems to hate Van Dijk? He has the 2nd lowest public rating there. Only late substitute Van de Ven has a lower rating. That is a joke. You can say he might have done better at the corner kick (although Dumfries and another one was more responsible for it) and there was one misplaced pass to the feet of Poland, potentially dangerous, but he had also that well taken volley saved by Szczesny for example, and some good passes. In the whole game Poland had only a couple opportunities. Not that I say 'man of the match' (the opportunity was on the left as I said) but this is a complete travesty. Much like the 'Bergkamp outside the top 50 for 1998' collected average grade by Titanlux in that thread (Sofascore has him as the 2nd best forward as I said, just 0.05 behind Ortega and he's 5th in the scorerslist, goals + assists, behind four strikers, not far behind the top).
Another thing I have decided to discard is to calculate a weighted average of all sources. I will continue with the arithmetic. I had this doubt because of the important differences that exist between the total averages of all the sources (whether they are more objective or more subjective). I established the total average of all sources (6.51) and the deviation with respect to that of each of the sources, resulting in results ranging from -0.09 for Kicker to 1.09 for SofaScore and Fotmob. Recalculating with these corrections in the absence of the missing ratings from Mundo Deportivo and with the hope that Football Ratings will publish the missing ones, I concluded that the difference between doing the arithmetic average and the weighted average is insignificant. Taking into account that some sources do not rate those who have not played a minimum number of minutes and others do, I would have to make a second correction that would not be real. Therefore, I will put in the excel table the existing ratings from As, Marca, Football Ratings, Whoscored, Sofascore, Futmondo, Kicker, TNT, Gazzetta dello Sport and Mundo Deportivo and the arithmetic average will come out, as it has been shown that the lowest and highest grades end up compensating each other. Provisionally, until I enter the ratings I am missing, the best averages of the first round of the first phase are these: Otra cosa que he decidido descartar es calcular una media ponderada de todas las fuentes. Continuaré con la aritmética. Esta duda la tuve a partir de las importantes diferencias que existen entre los promedios totales de todas las fuentes (sean más objetivas o más subjetivas). Establecí el promedio total de todas las fuentes (6,51) y la desviación respecto a la de cada una de las fuentes, resultando que los resultados iban desde el -0,09 de Kicker hasta el 1,09 de Sofascore y Fotmob. Recalculando con estas correcciones a falta de los ratings que me faltan de recuperar de Mundo Deportivo y con la esperanza de que Football Ratings publique los que faltan, concluí que la diferencia entre hacer la media aritmética y la ponderada es insignificante. Teniendo, además, en cuenta de que algunas fuentes no califican a los que no han jugado un mínimo de minutos y otras sí, tendría que practicar una segunda corrección que no sería real. Por todo ello, meteré en la tabla excel los ratings existentes de As, Marca, Football Ratings, Whoscored, Sofascore, Futmondo, Kicker, TNT, Gazzetta dello Sport y Mundo Deportivo y saldrá la media aritmética, pues se ha demostrado que las notas más bajas y las más altas terminan compensándose entre sí. Provisionalmente hasta introducir los ratings que me faltan, los mejores promedios de la primera ronda de la primera fase son estos: 1.- Musiala: 8,46 2.- Fabián: 8,42 3.- Guler: 8,11 4.- Man: 8,06 5.- Barella: 8,02 6.- Stanciu: 8 7.- Lamine Yamal: 7,99 8.- Eriksen: 7,95 9.- Aebischer: 7,93 10.- Aké: 7,78 There is a good chance that the final rating for Guler, Man, Stanciu, Aebischer and Aké will go down, as they are missing to include ratings from one or two sources. This could result in Bellingham, Wirtz, Carvajal and Kroos being able to break into the top 10 on that first day. Hay muchas probabilidades de que el rating definitivo de Guler, Man, Stanciu, Aebischer y Aké baje, pues les falta incluir los ratings de una o dos fuentes. Ello podría tener como consecuencia que Bellingham, Wirtz, Carvajal y Kroos pudieran meterse entre los 10 mejores en esa primera jornada.
No, I don't know to be honest. I do think his form at 'peak' was widely praised in England, and I guess I concur he doesn't seem quite back to that same level somehow (even improved in aspects recently and with positive stats you've picked out I remember), but maybe verdicts are going too far in the negative too often. Maybe, like @Kroos46 alluded to it can be that players/teams with high expectations get more harsh judgements in general.
Denmark with Haaland up front (10 million inhabitants in total) had made mince meat of this England team. Include Odegaard as well, who would fit in very nicely. England has a few totally overhyped players in Foden (with his Gascoigne hair in 2021 lol), Stones, Rice (Saka is good but doesn't seem in his best form or shape/pace to me, some wayward crosses). Not that they are bad, they're overhyped. First and foremost Foden. Kane is quality (although maybe physically declining?), Bellingham is quality, Trent is not full-blown midfielder (and besides, Trent at the peak of his fame had a low-ish cross and pass accuracy at Liverpool). Those substitutes for Kane and the rest of the Avengers cast... really don't know.