Player Ratings: Crystal Palace (h) 3-1

[Deleted member 13260]

Postecoglou: 9
Vicario: 7.5
Royal: 6
Romero: 7.5
Udogie: 7.5
van de Ven: 8.5
Højbjerg: 6.5
Sarr: 6.5
Bissouma: 7
Maddison: 7.5
Lo Celso: 6
Bentancur: 6.5
Son: 8.5
Kulusevski: 6
Scarlett: 6
Johnson: 7.5
Werner: 7.5



Submit your ratings | View match averages | View season averages

 

[Airfixx]

Try looking at the 2 posts above your's. Bissouma 7.5 then a 5.....hardly harmonious. Also a disagree left on one set of ratings before I came on here, again not harmonious.

Attaboy....

How's business on da street? .....Still shifting plenty of weight?

 

[sudoku]

Postecoglou: 8
Vicario: 5
Royal: 7
Romero: 8
Udogie: 7
van de Ven: 9
Højbjerg: 5
Sarr: 6
Bissouma: 7
Maddison: 7.5
Lo Celso: 5.5
Bentancur: 5.5
Son: 8.5
Kulusevski: 7
Scarlett: 6
Johnson: 8.5
Werner: 9



Submit your ratings | View match averages | View season averages

 

[The Dealer]

Attaboy....

How's business on da street? .....Still shifting plenty of weight?

I'm going on a diet as of tomorrow.

 

[The Dealer]

Postecoglou: 7
Vicario: 6
Royal: 7
Romero: 7.5
Udogie: 7
van de Ven: 8
Bissouma: 7.5
Maddison: 8
Bentancur: 6
Son: 7
Kulusevski: 7
Johnson: 8
Werner: 8



Submit your ratings | View match averages | View season averages

 

[The Dealer]

I count 34 ratings including 2 joke ones that should have been vetted out. But it shows 38 ratings for Vicario for example. There are only 32 acceptable ratings if the all 10s and the Royal getting a 1 were excluded. I don't understand where the 38 comes from.

 

[The Dealer]

A comparison between 7 media web average ratings, 8 forum select, a combination of the 15 and a pure forum average.
...................MW..FS.....C......PF
Vicario...6.50,6.62,6.56,6.91
Royal......6.28,6.93,6.63,6.68
Romero.7.85,7.93,7.90,7.78
Vdv..........7.64,8.37,8.03,8.25
Udogie...6.21,6.87,6.56,6.63
Bissou....7.07,7.06,7.06,6.47
Bentan...5.42,5.87,5.66,5.72
Maddis...7.14,7.37,7.26,6.88
Kulusev..6.....,6.35,6.16,.6.17
Werner..7.28,7.62,7.46,7.37
Son..........8.......,7.31,7.63,7.26

Sub
Johnson 7.85,7.68,7.76,764

Posto.................7.12,.........7.14

 

[The Dealer]

My own ratings had 6 notable differences to the pure forum average.

 

[zin]

I count 34 ratings including 2 joke ones that should have been vetted out. But it shows 38 ratings for Vicario for example. There are only 32 acceptable ratings if the all 10s and the Royal getting a 1 were excluded. I don't understand where the 38 comes from.

Posting ratings is optional, just because they aren't in the thread doesn't mean someone didn't submit theirs.

 

[Deuterz]

Postecoglou: 5
Vicario: 6
Royal: 6
Romero: 8
Udogie: 6
van de Ven: 8
Højbjerg: 5
Sarr: 6
Bissouma: 6.5
Maddison: 6.5
Lo Celso: 5
Bentancur: 4
Son: 8
Kulusevski: 3
Scarlett: 5
Johnson: 7
Werner: 7.5



Submit your ratings | View match averages | View season averages

 

[The Dealer]

Posting ratings is optional, just because they aren't in the thread doesn't mean someone didn't submit theirs.

What would the reason be for hiding ones ratings?

 

[The Dealer]

Kulusevski ranging from 3 to 8 !!

 

[Billy Bob mate]

What would the reason be for hiding ones ratings?

Ummm...maybe people don't want to be told that their view is incorrect because it's 0.42 lower/higher than what 7 media ratings say?

 

[Doom Funk]

Ummm...maybe people don't want to be told that their view is incorrect because it's 0.42 lower/higher than what 7 media ratings say?

I can't see you ever having that problem

 

[Billy Bob mate]

I can't see you ever having that problem

At least we all know mine are taking the piss.

If I posted genuine ratings, only to be told that they're 'not valid' cos certain people can't see how/why I would vote that way, then I'd rightly be pissed off.

 

[paddy spur]

A comparison between 7 media web average ratings, 8 forum select, a combination of the 15 and a pure forum average.
...................MW..FS.....C......PF
Vicario...6.50,6.62,6.56,6.91
Royal......6.28,6.93,6.63,6.68
Romero.7.85,7.93,7.90,7.78
Vdv..........7.64,8.37,8.03,8.25
Udogie...6.21,6.87,6.56,6.63
Bissou....7.07,7.06,7.06,6.47
Bentan...5.42,5.87,5.66,5.72
Maddis...7.14,7.37,7.26,6.88
Kulusev..6.....,6.35,6.16,.6.17
Werner..7.28,7.62,7.46,7.37
Son..........8.......,7.31,7.63,7.26

Sub
Johnson 7.85,7.68,7.76,764

Posto.................7.12,.........7.14

 

[The Dealer]

Ummm...maybe people don't want to be told that their view is incorrect because it's 0.42 lower/higher than what 7 media ratings say?

Awwwww ! poor little darlings. Grow some balls and be accountable.

 

[The Dealer]

At least we all know mine are taking the piss.

If I posted genuine ratings, only to be told that they're 'not valid' cos certain people can't see how/why I would vote that way, then I'd rightly be pissed off.

Then you have a low tolerance threshold and need to grow up.

 

[Billy Bob mate]

Awwwww ! poor little darlings. Grow some balls and be accountable.

Lol but that's the thing...why is anyone accountable to you when scoring how they see the game?!

Debate is fine...but you flat out tell people their opinion isn't valid cos they scored a player lower/higher than you think they should be scored.

 

[Billy Bob mate]

Then you have a low tolerance threshold and need to grow up.

Or...

...you can start accepting that how people watch football games is subjective.

Some will think player X had a good game while others will think he didn't.

Some will appreciate the contribution of player y more than someone else will.

Some lean towards attacking players being more influential than defenders so score accordingly.

Your issue is, and has always been, that everyone should watch and score the game how you see it which is obviously bollocks.

I genuinely think these ratings threads add value to this site and, to be fair, the analysis you post shows that the forum collectively scores pretty well.

It's just a shame every single one has to be spoilt by your nonsense.