Every Rams performance this season ranked best to worst 19/20

[admira]

I do this post every season but given some of our abject performances this year, thought I'd start it a little early to try and find some light in the darkness!

So on every prediction thread, we are asked to rate the previous Rams performance out of 10. The table below takes the highest score in each of those polls and then sorts by what percentage of us thought that to be the correct rating.

Highest rated league defeat is Forest (6).  Lowest rated win is Luton (6). Highest rated draw is West Brom (7).

Our highest rated performance is unfortunately the first game of the season. Unsurprisingly the four 0-3 defeats rank last.  The Wigan (H) ranking is currently unavailable but I'm making enquiries.

I'll endeavour to keep this list up to date for the remainder of the season.

Opponent (Venue) / Result / Rating / %

Huddersfield (A)  W2-1  8  49.57%

Preston (H) W1-0   8  47.09%

 

Birmingham (H) W3-2  7  52.60%

Boro (H) W2-0  7  51.11%

Scunthorpe (Cup) A W1-0  7  50.74%

West Brom (H)  D1-1  7  48.02% 

 

Stoke (A)  D2-2  6  56.04%

Swansea (H) D0-0  6  54.49%

Luton (H) W2-0  6  50.99%

Barnsley (A) D2-2  6  50.39%

Forest (A) L0-1  6  50.34%

Cardiff (H) D1-1  6  45.16%

Hull (A) L0-2   6  38.61%

 

QPR (H) D1-1   5   44.00%

Bristol City (H)  L1-2   5  36.99%

Leeds (A) D1-1  5  27.04%

 

Forest (Cup) (A) L 0-3  4  22.89%

 

Fulham (A) L0-3   3   29.69%

Charlton (A) L0-3  3  29.41%

Brentford (A) L0-3  3  26.63%

 

Wigan (H)  W1-0  ?  ??.??%

[admira]

Amended to include Wigan. Thanks for the update @mozza

 

Opponent (Venue) / Result / Rating / %

Huddersfield (A)  W2-1  8  49.57%

Preston (H) W1-0   8  47.09%

 

Birmingham (H) W3-2  7  52.60%

Boro (H) W2-0  7  51.11%

Scunthorpe (Cup) A W1-0  7  50.74%

West Brom (H)  D1-1  7  48.02% 

 

Stoke (A)  D2-2  6  56.04%

Swansea (H) D0-0  6  54.49%

Luton (H) W2-0  6  50.99%

Barnsley (A) D2-2  6  50.39%

Forest (A) L0-1  6  50.34%

Cardiff (H) D1-1  6  45.16%

Wigan (H)  W1-0  6  39.84%

Hull (A) L0-2   6  38.61%

 

QPR (H) D1-1   5   44.00%

Bristol City (H)  L1-2   5  36.99%

Leeds (A) D1-1  5  27.04%

 

Forest (Cup) (A) L 0-3  4  22.89%

 

Fulham (A) L0-3   3   29.69%

Charlton (A) L0-3  3  29.41%

Brentford (A) L0-3  3  26.63%

 

 

[cosmic]

Interesting that our “best” performance from a defeat was Forest away. You’d think with everyone beside themselves that score would have been even lower than probably deserved. Maybe shows these ratings are somewhat level-headed, most of the time. 

[admira]

Revised to include the last 4 games (all in bold and not getting any better as all fall into the worst nine performances of the season).

We've now been on the wrong end of an unprecedented FIVE 0-3 score lines.

 

Huddersfield (A)  W 2-1  8  49.57%

Preston (H) W 1-0   8  47.09%

 

Birmingham (H) W 3-2  7  52.60%

Boro (H) W 2-0  7  51.11%

Scunthorpe (Cup) A W 1-0  7  50.74%

West Brom (H)  D 1-1  7  48.02% 

 

Stoke (A)  D 2-2  6  56.04%

Swansea (H) D 0-0  6  54.49%

Luton (H) W 2-0  6  50.99%

Barnsley (A) D 2-2  6  50.39%

Forest (A) L 0-1  6  50.34%

Cardiff (H) D 1-1  6  45.16%

Wigan (H)  W 1-0  6  39.84%

Hull (A) L 0-2   6  38.61%

 

QPR (H) D 1-1   5   38.46%

Bristol City (H)  L 1-2   5  36.99%

Sheffield Wednesday (H) D 1-1  5  36.30%

Reading (A) L 0-3  5  27.43%

Leeds (A) D 1-1  5  27.04%

 

Millwall (H) L 0-1  4  31.54%

Blackburn (A) L 0-1  4  28.57%

Forest (Cup) (A) L 0-3  4  22.89%

 

Fulham (A) L 0-3   3   29.69%

Charlton (A) L 0-3  3  29.41%

Brentford (A) L 0-3  3  26.63%

[Tyler Durden]

What those stats say is that when we win we get awarded higher performance ratings then when we draw or lose which could infer that we haven't played well but then lost games and been seen as "unlucky" but we have lost games because we have in fact been consistently poor hence the award of the marks.

I would have expected to be seeing higher marks for games where we have drawn or lost if the performances had been good then if we had deservedly lost as we were abject.

 

[IslandExile]

8 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

What those stats say is that when we win we get awarded higher performance ratings then when we draw or lose which could infer that we haven't played well but then lost games and been seen as "unlucky" but we have lost games because we have in fact been consistently poor hence the award of the marks.

I would have expected to be seeing higher marks for games where we have drawn or lost if the performances had been good then if we had deservedly lost as we were abject.

 

Fair observation.

It suggests to me that folks are awarding marks based purely on result and not actual performance. (That's kinda understandable - disappointment etc)

Take Reading away as an example. According to all reports the performance was good, especially so because of being down to 10 men almost from the beginning, and yet the rating on here was low. It was also accompanied by another chorus of "Cocu out" and "the players aren't playing for him".

Facts not overlapping with some people's reality ?

[Tyler Durden]

1 minute ago, IslandExile said:

Fair observation.

It suggests to me that folks are awarding marks based purely on result and not actual performance.

Take Reading away as an example. According to all reports the performance was good, especially so because of being down to 10 men almost from the beginning, and yet the rating on here was low. It was also accompanied by another chorus of "Cocu out" and "the players aren't playing for him".

Facts not overlapping with some people's reality ?

Yes that was my other conclusion that regardless of the performance that the rose tinted glasses have come on when we have won games so the result trumps everything - not trying to suggest that when we have won games we have been lucky by the way.

There is some consistency though that the bottom quartile of marks have been awarded for a series of games which we have all lost 3-0.

[Ghost of Clough]

4 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

Fair observation.

It suggests to me that folks are awarding marks based purely on result and not actual performance. (That's kinda understandable - disappointment etc)

Take Reading away as an example. According to all reports the performance was good, especially so because of being down to 10 men almost from the beginning, and yet the rating on here was low. It was also accompanied by another chorus of "Cocu out" and "the players aren't playing for him".

Facts not overlapping with some people's reality ?

How many of the voters actually watch the games? That's part of (if not most of) the issue with these scores.

[admira]

19 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

Fair observation.

It suggests to me that folks are awarding marks based purely on result and not actual performance.

Take Reading away as an example. According to all reports the performance was good, especially so because of being down to 10 men almost from the beginning, and yet the rating on here was low. It was also accompanied by another chorus of "Cocu out" and "the players aren't playing for him".

Facts not overlapping with some people's reality ?

To be fair though, if you're not at the game, you base the performance on the score and what you read in a match report / what other posters say that were at the game.

[Tyler Durden]

16 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

How many of the voters actually watch the games? That's part of (if not most of) the issue with these scores.

Agreed but I would hazard a guess as @admira has just posted that people's judgement will be based on the consensus on the forum after a game unless you are inferring that posters on here are unable of forming a balanced view after they have watched a game. 

[IslandExile]

2 minutes ago, admira said:

To be fair though, if you're not at the game, you base the performance on the score and what you read in a match report / what other posters say that were at the game.

True but, in the Reading example, the reports from those at the game were all positive.

I think we might have more accurate stats if the ratings were only done by those who do see the game.

Or maybe we could have a question of how you voted based on being at the game, watching on TV or based on text reports or gut feeling. Then we could filter the results as we choose.

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

True but, in the Reading example, the reports from those at the game were all positive.

Not all, there was at least one on the match thread from someone who went and wasn't that impressed by our performance. Maybe others didn't feel like saying so?

[Derby blood]

The games I have seen with my own eyes, the best 2 home performances have to be Preston and Boro, some very good football was played in both matches, the worst 2 home performances were Millwall and Bristol City, the 2 worst away performances were Forest in the cup and Fulham, only seen 3 away games so far so the best has to be Barnsley. 

[Ghost of Clough]

36 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Agreed but I would hazard a guess as @admira has just posted that people's judgement will be based on the consensus on the forum after a game unless you are inferring that posters on here are unable of forming a balanced view after they have watched a game. 

I'm suggesting there will be a few who have voted a low score purely based on the score without having seen the game itself.

Take the Reading game as an example... one of the best performances of the season yet voted as our 8th worse.

[Tyler Durden]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I'm suggesting there will be a few who have voted a low score purely based on the score without having seen the game itself.

Yes my point was though that those people opinions will be formed by reading the consensus of the posters on here who did watch the game so it's not going to be based on fresh air. 

[angieram]

I haven't voted yet as I usually only do so on the day of the next game when I make my prediction.

It'll go up a bit when I do! ?

[Ghost of Clough]

I thought I would compare @admira's scores with Whoscored's. 
Given @admira's rating range from 3 to 8, and Whoscored's range from 6.08 to 7.28, Iv'e used a weighted Whoscored's range to align with @admira's. Surprisingly, the two results are very similar with the odd exception.

[IslandExile]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Not all, there was at least one on the match thread from someone who went and wasn't that impressed by our performance. Maybe others didn't feel like saying so?

Yeah maybe.

Or maybe there are some people who are determined to be negative about the manager, the players and even the club - even at Christmas! ? 

Anyhow, let's hope it's a happy new year for all of us ?

[SaintRam]

23 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I thought I would compare @admira's scores with Whoscored's. 
Given @admira's rating range from 3 to 8, and Whoscored's range from 6.08 to 7.28, Iv'e used a weighted Whoscored's range to align with @admira's. Surprisingly, the two results are very similar with the odd exception.

The forum has valued the performance higher than the stats on 11 occasions; lower on 11 occasions - and one matchday didn't have a poll? Convenient. 

Seems we're far more likely to be wide of the mark after a positive performance (or one deemed a positive one by us, looking at you week 5) than a negative one.

[cannable]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Not all, there was at least one on the match thread from someone who went and wasn't that impressed by our performance. Maybe others didn't feel like saying so?

They are wrong then, as opinions can be