Derby v Barnsley Match Ratings

[Wolfie20]

Wildsmith       6

Knight             6

Stearman        7

Cashin             9

Roberts            6

Sibley               6

Bird                   6.5

Hourihane         6.5

Mendez- Laing  7

Barkhuizen        7

Collins                6

Corey-Smith      6

Dobbin               6

Forsyth               6

 

 

[Andrew3000]

Wildsmith 6.5 Decent save, erratic kicking. He'll grow into the role.

Knight 7 Pretty solid. Tenacious, great stamina, some driving forward.

Stearman 6 Bad deflection for the goal, otherwise did better than I expected.

Cashin  9  Always in the right position, a natural defender. His passing short and long is v.good, won nearly all his headers. Blocks, tackles and intercepts. NEarly always found the perfect solution.

Roberts. 7 I like him. Great vision passing forward at times. Decent cross on him. Solid defender, decent in the air. OK made a couple of horrendous gaffes, but is skillful and strong.

Sibley 7 Looked sharp and dynamic in first half.

Bird 7.5

Hourihane 7 Some lovely passing, free kicks and corners. Faded again, difficult to sub him off with his quality but sometimes we made need to.

Mendez-Laing 7 That was a great finish. 

Barkheuizen 7 Nice assist, good direct running.

Collins 5  Put a shift in. Didn't link up play much from what I saw or win headers.

Smith 6 Arguably should have come on for Hourihane and not Sibley. Still don't get using him to press high. Tidy enough.

Dobbin. 6 Tried a trick in our half and lost the ball. Unlucky to get penalised for a great tackle back. 

Forsyth 5 or no rating as so little time.

[Rev]

Wildsmith 7

 

Knight 8 

 

Stearman 7

 

Cashin 9.5

 

Roberts 6

 

Sibley 7

 

Bird 7

 

Hourihane 6.5

 

Mendez-Laing 6

 

Barkheuizen 6

 

Collins 7

 

Corey-Smith 6

 

Dobbin 6

 

Forsyth 6

[rammieib]

On 14/08/2022 at 07:53, Ellafella said:

@rammieib typo for Wildsmith? 7?

Yep = 7. Thanks Ella.

[Ellafella]

Thanks to all of you for your ratings & comments which are always insightful. As the Great Man said "Derby folk know their football..."

Summary

A few fans used the phrase "Cashin MOTM by a Country Mile", and that's precisely what the ratings show. His average mark was 8.67 which included two ratings of 10. The next closest was Hourihane with 6.97 then NML with 6.92. I have to say I was immensely impressed with Cashin's performance & was not surprised to hear his team mates applauded him in the dressing-room afterwards. He really stepped up in Curtis's absence. I'm not surprised though - I could see his quality when I first saw him at Notts County last year. 

The team average rating was 6.64 {shown by the red dotted line). The average Team Aggregate Rating was 88. 2 which compares with 82.88 V Charlton, 83.6 V MTFC & 80.98 V OUFC. 

The number of raters increased this time to 33 - the highest yet this season compared with next highest which was 26 versus OUFC.

We are accumulating a lot of potentially interesting statistics about player ratings, including by forum raters, so keep them coming. 

I will do a year-to-date summary which will follow soon. It will be interesting to see if ratings pick up seasonal variation (in player form) or if they remain fairly static, reflecting rater bias. Ratings probably reflect a bit of both - so hard to differentiate. The Infographic is below:     

[sage]

1 hour ago, Ellafella said:

Thanks to all of you for your ratings & comments which are always insightful. As the Great Man said "Derby folk know their football..."

Summary

A few fans used the phrase "Cashin MOTM by a Country Mile", and that's precisely what the ratings show. His average mark was 8.67 which included two ratings of 10. The next closest was Hourihane with 6.97 then NML with 6.92. I have to say I was immensely impressed with Cashin's performance & was not surprised to hear his team mates applauded him in the dressing-room afterwards. He really stepped up in Curtis's absence. I'm not surprised though - I could see his quality when I first saw him at Notts County last year. 

The team average rating was 6.64 {shown by the red dotted line). The average Team Aggregate Rating was 88. 2 which compares with 82.88 V Charlton, 83.6 V MTFC & 80.98 V OUFC. 

The number of raters increased this time to 33 - the highest yet this season compared with next highest which was 26 versus OUFC.

We are accumulating a lot of potentially interesting statistics about player ratings, including by forum raters, so keep them coming. 

I will do a year-to-date summary which will follow soon. It will be interesting to see if ratings pick up seasonal variation (in player form) or if they remain fairly static, reflecting rater bias. Ratings probably reflect a bit of both - so hard to differentiate. The Infographic is below:     

Lovely work sir, though i see a slight issue with late subs being included for ratings. Perhaps it needs reiterating that an average mark is 6 and therefore subs are on 6 when they walk onto the pitch. Sorry for poking my nose in

[Ellafella]

53 minutes ago, sage said:

Lovely work sir, though i see a slight issue with late subs being included for ratings. Perhaps it needs reiterating that an average mark is 6 and therefore subs are on 6 when they walk onto the pitch. Sorry for poking my nose in

Poke away all you like @sage - I’m happy to take comments and I will reiterate your message back to raters. Thanks also for your kind words.

[Crewton]

Great work.

Anyone who gave Cashin 10 though is distorting the figures. It was a great performance, but not flawless.

[sunnyhill60]

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

Great work.

Anyone who gave Cashin 10 though is distorting the figures. It was a great performance, but not flawless.

But who can seriously blame them after what we saw?

[Crewton]

6 hours ago, sunnyhill60 said:

But who can seriously blame them after what we saw?

No "blame" just an observation. I've seen a few performances over the years that deserved 10/10 but, great though it was from a young player, and undoubtedly MOTM standard, that wasn't one them. 

[chadlad]

14 hours ago, Ellafella said:

Thanks to all of you for your ratings & comments which are always insightful. As the Great Man said "Derby folk know their football..."

Summary

A few fans used the phrase "Cashin MOTM by a Country Mile", and that's precisely what the ratings show. His average mark was 8.67 which included two ratings of 10. The next closest was Hourihane with 6.97 then NML with 6.92. I have to say I was immensely impressed with Cashin's performance & was not surprised to hear his team mates applauded him in the dressing-room afterwards. He really stepped up in Curtis's absence. I'm not surprised though - I could see his quality when I first saw him at Notts County last year. 

The team average rating was 6.64 {shown by the red dotted line). The average Team Aggregate Rating was 88. 2 which compares with 82.88 V Charlton, 83.6 V MTFC & 80.98 V OUFC. 

The number of raters increased this time to 33 - the highest yet this season compared with next highest which was 26 versus OUFC.

We are accumulating a lot of potentially interesting statistics about player ratings, including by forum raters, so keep them coming. 

I will do a year-to-date summary which will follow soon. It will be interesting to see if ratings pick up seasonal variation (in player form) or if they remain fairly static, reflecting rater bias. Ratings probably reflect a bit of both - so hard to differentiate. The Infographic is below:     

On reflection 4 for Smith may have been a little harsh. Having said that subs need to affect the game in a positive way and Smith failed to do that IMO.

[Carnero]

12 hours ago, Crewton said:

Great work.

Anyone who gave Cashin 10 though is distorting the figures. It was a great performance, but not flawless.

Well I gave a 10 and I stick by it ?

[May Contain Nuts]

24 minutes ago, Carnero said:

Well I gave a 10 and I stick by it ?

Same.

10 doesn't mean flawless to me, otherwise nothing and nobody would ever achieve a 10 rating for anything, ever.

[Ellafella]

1 hour ago, chadlad said:

On reflection 4 for Smith may have been a little harsh. Having said that subs need to affect the game in a positive way and Smith failed to do that IMO.

Absolutely @chadlad The purpose of the ratings is to express your views; the intention is not to hold you to account. Give the rating as you see it. The ratings will show the range given from a statistical perspective - that’s all. It’s all about opinions. 

[Grimbeard]

35 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Same.

10 doesn't mean flawless to me, otherwise nothing and nobody would ever achieve a 10 rating for anything, ever.

If marking out of 10, then 10 does mean flawless or perfect. And you're right, nobody should achieve a 10 rating. Ever.

If 6 is deemed as average, then most players, most weeks should be scoring around this mark. I would say 7 is good, 8 very good and 9 reserved for exceptional performances and 9.5 would be out of this world.

[May Contain Nuts]

18 minutes ago, Grimbeard said:

If marking out of 10, then 10 does mean flawless or perfect. And you're right, nobody should achieve a 10 rating. Ever.

If 6 is deemed as average, then most players, most weeks should be scoring around this mark. I would say 7 is good, 8 very good and 9 reserved for exceptional performances and 9.5 would be out of this world.

 

In which case the ratings system should only go up to 9.5.

As that's the highest anyone can go to though, that itself becomes the 'perfect score' and is in effect the same as giving someone a 10/10.

It's a stupid, self-defeating piece of pedantry to not allow 10/10 ratings.

Standards of performance that people/things are expected to meet change all the time, it's all relative.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Coconut's Beard

[Ellafella]

16 minutes ago, Grimbeard said:

If marking out of 10, then 10 does mean flawless or perfect. And you're right, nobody should achieve a 10 rating. Ever.

If 6 is deemed as average, then most players, most weeks should be scoring around this mark. I would say 7 is good, 8 very good and 9 reserved for exceptional performances and 9.5 would be out of this world.

It’s an interesting debate. Why have a scale score if it’s never going to be used? 
I like you “operationalisations” of the scores and may consider using them as a guide. Thanks for your input. 

[Grimbeard]

5 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

 

In which case the ratings system should only go up to 9.5.

As that's the highest anyone can go to though, that itself becomes the 'perfect score' and is in effect the same as giving someone a 10/10.

It's a stupid, self-defeating piece of pedantry to not allow 10/10 ratings.

Standards of performance that people/things are expected to meet change all the time, it's all relative.

No, because then we'd be marking out 9.5, so 9.5 would be perfect and thus unachievable.

 

[May Contain Nuts]

3 minutes ago, Grimbeard said:

No, because then we'd be marking out 9.5, so 9.5 would be perfect and thus unachievable.

If it's unachievable you're not really even marking against it, so it might as well not exist as a mark in the first place.

You're downgrading someone's score because they didn't achieve what you've declared to literally be impossible.

[May Contain Nuts]

It's similar to the debate that it's impossible to give 110%

People are obsessed with the maths behind it and looking at it from a pure statistical viewpoint, they take it far too literally.

It's just the same as saying someone "went above and beyond their call of duty" or similar.

You could give 100% of effort you are capable of giving at one point, but in doing so perhaps you expand your lung capacity? Next time you're called upon you're physically capable of putting in 'more' but it doesn't mean you didn't put in 100% on your first run, it's just that the metric has moved.

Alternatively you could try to push yourself further than your body is physically capable of safely handling and end up harming yourself as a result. Surely the line for giving 100% in that scenario is where it goes from being safe to being dangerous?

Maybe we should just say that it's impossible to put in 100% effort? I'm sure that'd go down well.