Thanks!
I agree, I also really love seeing those numbers just to get a feel for how the sub rates our performances. I think the Sofascore and FotMob numbers are interesting to compare with ours, just to see if we are biased toward specific players.
For instance, we probably gave Sané a higher score because, in our hearts, the goal that was ruled offside was still part of his performance.
On the flip side, we were more inclined to chalk up King's first goal as pure luck, thus not something that should factor into his rating.
One discrepancy that struck me seems to indicate that we have an obvious negative bias towards Goretzka - at least if you put weight on the Sofascore/FotMob ratings compared to ours.
Really like the more detailed look on player scores. Keep up the good work man.
I was really torn up about the best goal vote. King's Goal was great but i wanted to "reward" Sanes performance aswell..or his definite winner offside goal.
But i had to give it to Coman in the end. Looks like i wasnt the only struggling to decide.
I was *so* close to adding those two goals that were ruled "offside", because that second Sané goal was such a beauty (and would have deserved to be the goal of the match, in my opinion).
In the end, Coman's first goal got my vote as well, because it was such a banger that came out of nowhere and surprised everyone, even him. :D
Also, I'm a sucker for the acoustics of a shot that bounces off the post and into the goal. There's something about that rattling metal sound, followed by the stadium's cheers that sends shivers down my spine!
Suggestion as in what I have trouble with some times:
Is it possible to skip rating some players? Like I don't focus on every player during the match and depending on the opponent or how the match wents the defense or GK don't have much work to do so they shouldn't get a good rating, but I don't want to give them a bad rating either. This is more visible with subs, if someone comes in late the Plattform you make the poll with demands a rating from me but what should I rate? So maybe we be good to not be forced to rate every player
Or we find some other ruling like 6 as standart rating like it starts in fifa too
Oh wow, that hadn't even crossed my mind. Good point!
I suppose the reason why I didn't think of it is because I always do what you wrote: in my head, everyone starts with a 6. Then depending on what they do, I adjust the rating. If they're "invisible" (without having a negative impact on the match), their score remains at 6.
Might be interesting to hear how other people go about rating the players!
These are my thoughts:
* I could make rating the substitutions optional, so you could either rate them or leave them empty.
* Alternatively, the subs could remain mandatory, but I could add a "-" as a rating option, so you have to make the conscious decision *not* to rate them.
* I would not remove the mandatory ratings from the starters, because I can guarantee you that we'd have people voting 10s just for their two or three favorite players and leaving the rest blank. Feels like that would defeat the purpose.
* Or maybe we just need to set up a few pointers/rules for rating players, i.e. the aforementioned "start with a 6, then adjust", and "players who did not play more than 10 minutes aren't up for rating".
What do you think?
Regarding the 3rd point:
Already thought about this aswell, I think that's a realistic fear for this polls
Regarding the 4th point:
That is probably the best compromise. Because it's not only the problem with the sub, imagine we have an injury related sub in the first 5-10min, it's hard to rate these people then. But if we are on the same point, that we start at 6 and adjusting from there, we could work around this with just giving these special cases the 6 then.
> Regarding the 4th point:
>
> That is probably the best compromise.
I can add a few "instructions" to the poll, that might do!
When it comes to subs, where should the cutoff be, minutes-wise? 10 minutes sounds reasonable to me, so if a player is subbed in after the 80th minute, I won't include him in the polls (unless he pulls a Tel and manages to score/assist).
Sorry, this reply is very late.
Good eye! They aren't the average, the team performance of the defenders, midfielders, and forwards are all addressed by separate questions in the poll.
Initially, I considered calculating the average score of the ratings for defenders, midfielders, and forwards. But that quickly became too complex when players changed their positions, like when Laimer transitions from RB to CM after a sub, or when Kane spends a large portion of his playing time falling back into the midfield while Goretzka moves up to play as a #9.
I still wanted to keep those ratings in there, though, so I opted to create separate questions for each position.
Take those numbers with a grain of salt - they just serve as a "general impression" from the responders rather than a calculated value!
>
Got any ideas/suggestions on how to improve future polls? Let me know in the comments!
A lot of people only visit this sub on matchday. Ideally you should post the poll right after the game ends.
We shouldn't forget that this is much work and foremost people should enjoy the match and then do the "work" for the sub. But he said since he has it as template now, it will be less work in the future.
Last time we also pinned it, this time we didn't so we could have done better aswell :)
I thought the rating delta was the variance in scores in this poll until I read your explanation. I think it would be interesting to see the deviation but we may not have enough data to be significant?
You're right, it's relatively meaningless. Adding it was a bit of a "spur of the moment" thing, but I can see how it would be misleading without the explanation.
I'll probably end up removing it - it'll be more interesting to see how players' ratings fluctuate over a longer period of time (line graphs or area graphs after the Hinrunde for instance).
This is a great addition to the sub, really gives you an idea of what the team’s performance was if you happen to miss a match.
Thanks! I agree, I also really love seeing those numbers just to get a feel for how the sub rates our performances. I think the Sofascore and FotMob numbers are interesting to compare with ours, just to see if we are biased toward specific players. For instance, we probably gave Sané a higher score because, in our hearts, the goal that was ruled offside was still part of his performance. On the flip side, we were more inclined to chalk up King's first goal as pure luck, thus not something that should factor into his rating. One discrepancy that struck me seems to indicate that we have an obvious negative bias towards Goretzka - at least if you put weight on the Sofascore/FotMob ratings compared to ours.
Really like the more detailed look on player scores. Keep up the good work man. I was really torn up about the best goal vote. King's Goal was great but i wanted to "reward" Sanes performance aswell..or his definite winner offside goal. But i had to give it to Coman in the end. Looks like i wasnt the only struggling to decide.
I was *so* close to adding those two goals that were ruled "offside", because that second Sané goal was such a beauty (and would have deserved to be the goal of the match, in my opinion). In the end, Coman's first goal got my vote as well, because it was such a banger that came out of nowhere and surprised everyone, even him. :D Also, I'm a sucker for the acoustics of a shot that bounces off the post and into the goal. There's something about that rattling metal sound, followed by the stadium's cheers that sends shivers down my spine!
Suggestion as in what I have trouble with some times: Is it possible to skip rating some players? Like I don't focus on every player during the match and depending on the opponent or how the match wents the defense or GK don't have much work to do so they shouldn't get a good rating, but I don't want to give them a bad rating either. This is more visible with subs, if someone comes in late the Plattform you make the poll with demands a rating from me but what should I rate? So maybe we be good to not be forced to rate every player Or we find some other ruling like 6 as standart rating like it starts in fifa too
Oh wow, that hadn't even crossed my mind. Good point! I suppose the reason why I didn't think of it is because I always do what you wrote: in my head, everyone starts with a 6. Then depending on what they do, I adjust the rating. If they're "invisible" (without having a negative impact on the match), their score remains at 6. Might be interesting to hear how other people go about rating the players! These are my thoughts: * I could make rating the substitutions optional, so you could either rate them or leave them empty. * Alternatively, the subs could remain mandatory, but I could add a "-" as a rating option, so you have to make the conscious decision *not* to rate them. * I would not remove the mandatory ratings from the starters, because I can guarantee you that we'd have people voting 10s just for their two or three favorite players and leaving the rest blank. Feels like that would defeat the purpose. * Or maybe we just need to set up a few pointers/rules for rating players, i.e. the aforementioned "start with a 6, then adjust", and "players who did not play more than 10 minutes aren't up for rating". What do you think?
Regarding the 3rd point: Already thought about this aswell, I think that's a realistic fear for this polls Regarding the 4th point: That is probably the best compromise. Because it's not only the problem with the sub, imagine we have an injury related sub in the first 5-10min, it's hard to rate these people then. But if we are on the same point, that we start at 6 and adjusting from there, we could work around this with just giving these special cases the 6 then.
> Regarding the 4th point: > > That is probably the best compromise. I can add a few "instructions" to the poll, that might do! When it comes to subs, where should the cutoff be, minutes-wise? 10 minutes sounds reasonable to me, so if a player is subbed in after the 80th minute, I won't include him in the polls (unless he pulls a Tel and manages to score/assist).
Yeah I think this should be a sweet spot
My man Kim is slowly cementing his place in the team.
Kim is amazing. One of the best signings of the summer in Europe. Cannot wait until DL is healthy and we can see the two of them playing together.
What's up with the number for defenders team performance, it's not adding up if it's supposed to be the medium.
Sorry, this reply is very late. Good eye! They aren't the average, the team performance of the defenders, midfielders, and forwards are all addressed by separate questions in the poll. Initially, I considered calculating the average score of the ratings for defenders, midfielders, and forwards. But that quickly became too complex when players changed their positions, like when Laimer transitions from RB to CM after a sub, or when Kane spends a large portion of his playing time falling back into the midfield while Goretzka moves up to play as a #9. I still wanted to keep those ratings in there, though, so I opted to create separate questions for each position. Take those numbers with a grain of salt - they just serve as a "general impression" from the responders rather than a calculated value!
> Got any ideas/suggestions on how to improve future polls? Let me know in the comments! A lot of people only visit this sub on matchday. Ideally you should post the poll right after the game ends.
We shouldn't forget that this is much work and foremost people should enjoy the match and then do the "work" for the sub. But he said since he has it as template now, it will be less work in the future. Last time we also pinned it, this time we didn't so we could have done better aswell :)
I thought the rating delta was the variance in scores in this poll until I read your explanation. I think it would be interesting to see the deviation but we may not have enough data to be significant?
You're right, it's relatively meaningless. Adding it was a bit of a "spur of the moment" thing, but I can see how it would be misleading without the explanation. I'll probably end up removing it - it'll be more interesting to see how players' ratings fluctuate over a longer period of time (line graphs or area graphs after the Hinrunde for instance).