Player Ratings: Chelsea (h) 1-4

  • 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...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Not on this occasion but their opinion is just as valid as mine.

This is not a regular thread. Don't see the need to disagree with anyone's rating, when the whole point of this thread is to get an average of all forum users opinions (whether you like those opinions or not). There'll be outliers who score very high but also very low, so it will all even out in the end.
Not a reliable or accurate way of achieving a rating, highs and lows etc. It's too random and irrelevant. This thread has been confirmed as just for fun. I'm extracting the quality to try and give an alternative and perhaps broader representation as a comparison.
 
Not a reliable or accurate way of achieving a rating, highs and lows etc. It's too random and irrelevant. This thread has been confirmed as just for fun. I'm extracting the quality to try and give an alternative and perhaps broader representation as a comparison.
But by 'extracting the quality' surely you're just introducing your own bias and making the representation narrower, not broader?

I'm still not really any wiser on what constitutes a worthy/correct rating for you, but nevermind, I'll leave it at that.
 
But by 'extracting the quality' surely you're just introducing your own bias and making the representation narrower, not broader?

I'm still not really any wiser on what constitutes a worthy/correct rating for you, but nevermind, I'll leave it at that.

Broader because I use 10 media / web ratings and 10 quality forum ratings. This gives a less biased
representation. If I included all players get 10 ratings it would be nonsense.
 
But by 'extracting the quality' surely you're just introducing your own bias and making the representation narrower, not broader?

I'm still not really any wiser on what constitutes a worthy/correct rating for you, but nevermind, I'll leave it at that.

The forum ratings I select are not " correct " but they are generally sensible or " worthy " if you like.
 
But by 'extracting the quality' surely you're just introducing your own bias and making the representation narrower, not broader?

I'm still not really any wiser on what constitutes a worthy/correct rating for you, but nevermind, I'll leave it at that.

It's not my bias. It's the comparison to a variety of outside opinion. I don't always agree with the consensus and critique my own ratings to highlight that.
 
But by 'extracting the quality' surely you're just introducing your own bias and making the representation narrower, not broader?

I'm still not really any wiser on what constitutes a worthy/correct rating for you, but nevermind, I'll leave it at that.

Yeh,. not worth wasting your to with this narcissistic toss-pot..... It's the same every weekend.

FWIW; you're spot on with everything you said. :tanguythumb:
 
Media/ Web across 10 reports.
Vicario.....8.55
Porro........6.95
Romero....2.45
Vdv.............6.10
Udogie......3.75
Sarr.............6.80
Bissouma. 6.95
Maddison. 6.15
Kulusevski 6.90
Son...............6.70
Johnson......6.06
Subs
Dier...............7.30
Royal............6.55
Hojbjerg......7.45
am I missing something here?
The guy gives the average of polls elsewhere (I assume) and 4 people disagree????

Is he making the stuff up or do you people dislike him as a poster so much that you will just disagree with everything he posts?

seems really petty
 
Back
Top Bottom