Ratings Surveys : Bristol City Survey Open

davenportram · December 13, 2015

2 minutes ago, sage said:

Their is a fault. You cannot give consecutive players the same mark,

I will cancel and restart. Thanks for the heads up

davenportram · December 13, 2015

Updated survey link - this one works

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/C879KSG

admira · December 14, 2015

Have you fixed the MOM as well? I saw Carson and Bryson as options but not Grant, bent or Johnson

sage · December 14, 2015

It amuses me that we are sitting 4th in the table and our highest raked player is Keogh on 7.08.

What a bunch of Meldrews.

December 14, 2015

14 minutes ago, sage said:

It amuses me that we are sitting 4th in the table and our highest raked player is Keogh on 7.08.

What a bunch of Meldrews.

In a game where Derby wins, everyone gets 6s and 7s. When we lose or draw, everyone gets 2-6s lol. I think people have a warped view of what is "average" for our side.

davenportram · December 14, 2015

5 hours ago, admira said:

Have you fixed the MOM as well? I saw Carson and Bryson as options but not Grant, bent or Johnson

I inputted the correct list when I edited the survey from a previous match. For some reason it didn't save the changes (when I tested it the correct team was there) I blame the survey monkey.

if I change it now I would need to clear the votes so far so I will leave it and MoM will awarded to the player with the highest average rating. So far that has matched the survey result every time.

davenportram · December 14, 2015

4 hours ago, sage said:

It amuses me that we are sitting 4th in the table and our highest raked player is Keogh on 7.08.

What a bunch of Meldrews.

expectation bias. We expect to win every game and every player is expected to the best in the division, so when they're not they get hammered.

also quite interesting that while our average rating has stayed pretty constant our league position has a steady increase then plateaus against teams around us. Maybe the comments about "but when we played them they were...." Are accurate. We haven't improved performance wise so it must be the relative form and quality of opposition that dictates how league position change.

davenportram · December 14, 2015

oh yeah and of course even when we play lesser teams if the teams above us also play well and get results league position wont change

Bridgford Ram · December 15, 2015

I love this thread and appreciate everything @davenportram does but I always find it tough to rate the subs.

It seems mean to punish them with a 4 or 5 if there only crime is playing a short period of time but then 6 or 7 seems harsh as that should be saved for a player who has had a decent game over the 90. What do others do? Should there be a 'no rating option'?

December 15, 2015

31 minutes ago, Bridgford Ram said:

I love this thread and appreciate everything @davenportram does but I always find it tough to rate the subs.

It seems mean to punish them with a 4 or 5 if there only crime is playing a short period of time but then 6 or 7 seems harsh as that should be saved for a player who has had a decent game over the 90. What do others do? Should there be a 'no rating option'?

6 is my average rating. A 6, for me, is a player who didn't do anything more than expected and didn't make more mistakes than expected. Therefore unless they did something spectacular or something woeful in their short time, I give them a 6. If they play over 30 minutes you can usually give a more accurate rating.