http://www.soccertimes.com/usteams/2003/jun08.htm Typical Wagman review. No real complaints on the text. Most of us know his ratings are crap, but this one takes the cake. Of the players reviewed, an unbelievable NINE (!!!) players received the telling 5.5 rating. His lowest rating (Stewart) was a 5, and the highest (Lewis) was 7. That's a difference of 2.0. This is a TEN POINT SCALE. Why doesn't Bob just use the 1, 2 rating system. All players get a 1, except that special "Pele-like" player that gets a 2. I just wish Bob would strap one on and tell us what he really thinks. He can't truly believe that nine players on Sunday gave the exact same effort/performance. Serves me right for bothering to read it, I suppose.
I thought most of his ratings were spot on. I would have given Armas a 6.5 though. And I really do think that the majority of our players played on the same level. I also thought he went easy on Berhalter, the worst player on the field for us during the game
to be honest I've never heard of the 1, 2 rating system. In my eyes Lewis should have gotten an 8. This is what I go by but it's probably one level higher than what Wagman uses: 10-Clearly man of the match; multiple assists or goals; took over the game 9-probably will earn man of the match; contributed with a goal or an assist or was an absolute beast defensively or in goal 8-candidate for man of the match; one of the top few players on the pitch 7-a better than average performance 6-average; didn't suck and didn't not suck 5-below average 4-one of the worst performances/outings you'll ever see by that particular player; rarely seen 3-even worse than a 4 rating; maybe once a season a player is lucky enough to get this distinction
Yeah, I made it up, to illustrate why it's ludicrous for Bob to even use a ten point scale when he rarely ventures more than 2 points apart. For the record, I would have been much harsher on our defense in general. No player in the back four would received higher than a 4.
subbuteo, I think you started out right, then went to the curve. I think the basis of the 10 pt scale is that 5 be what you have for 6. I think 4 is supposed to be a sub-par game, but not one of your worst performances ever, and so on...
He doesnt... I believe the highest rating he uses is an 8.. He should use a 10 point scale for the reasons mentioned already...
Compared to all other performances at the same level of competition: 10 One of the best performances you'll ever see 9 One of the best performances you'll see each year 8 One of the best performances you'll see each month 7 One of the best performances you'll see each week 6 A moderately above-average performance 5.5 An average performance 5 A moderately below-average performance 4 One of the worst performances you'll see each week 3 One of the worst performances you'll see each month 2 One of the best performances you'll see each year 1 One of the worst performances you'll ever see A ten point scale on a bell curve... I don't know that my descriptive words matter as much as the fact that it demonstrates you can have a logical ten point scale where 5.5's are common and 9's and 10's are extremely rare for any particular team. (How often does a US player have one of the best international performances of the year? And I don't think there's ever been a US player with a performance we'd call one of the best ever at the international level.) Since 5.5 is the average with any ten point scale, it's never surprising to see that in any given game many of the players had average performances and got average 5.5's. (This presumes that you are grading players compared to other players at the same level of competition--which I think is quite reasonable.) By the way a 5 can't be average on a ten point scale since you'd then have five above-average ratings (6, 7, 8, 9, 10) and only four below-average ratings (1, 2, 3, 4)--only in Lake Wobegon do you have more above-average than below-average ratings.
SoccerEsq-5.5 is the median of the 1-10 scale you show. Just out of curiousity--what if the scale actually runs from 0 to 10? Isn't 5 about the median then?
I'm sorry, but I have to say f*** the silly European player rating system! What's wrong with you people? Could you be any more German? This is America. Yes, I do believe it is the one true "football." And I can live with calling a team a "side." I cringe, but OK if you call the field a "pitch." But f*** the Euro rating system. It's just another little inside soccer ritual that keeps the fan base of the sport we love from growing in this country. (man, I don't know what got into me there)
One of the dumber parts was that he called both of our goals flukes. Kirovski's definitely was, but Klein's was a nice goal, from the pass to Klein to his finish.
Good explanation of how the rating system *should* be, SoccerEsq. As for the Klien goal being a fluke, hell no it wasn't a fluke! But if you put him in that exact spot ten times, I bet he only scores that goal 2 out of 10... It was a helluva finish at the exact right time. And as for Subteo's rating where "10" means MOTM or multiple assists/goals/"took over the game", are you suggesting that nearly every game have a "10"? Hmmm.... I think I'll leave that one alone...
Nigel: "You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. You’re on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One louder." DiBergi: "Why don’t you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?" Nigel (after taking a moment to let this sink in): "...These go to 11."
Well put. If the curve is approximately normally distributed - and it should be - a full 67% of the ratings handed out should fall between 5 and 6 inclusive, or thereabouts. Wagman thought this game was especially pedestrian, and I can't say I disagree. What has always annoyed me - for almost 10 years now - are the way most people vote on the Sams Army player ratings. If the team wins, everybody gets 7s. If they lose, 4s. What is that crap? I've only once or twice handed out 9 ratings, and never a 10. Similarly for 2 and 1 ratings.