I occasionally browse the articles on LU and FRF. Generally i find the site quite good, but a couple of things in particular i think could do with improvement.
First, the "expert weekend wrap" published at the completion of each round. I found the title of this enticing, but when I open the article each week I'm disappointed to find no more than a round-up of who scored and maybe a couple of other token comments. Hardly an expert wrap, and more like someone's just read the paper this morning and wrote an article about it on LU.
Secondly are the power rankings. A great innovation, but could do with some finetuning. I find the changes in these from one week to the next quite bizarre. How a team can go from first or second one week, to all of a sudden dropping 8 places on the back of one loss is a bit bizarre. You could argue it reflects the closeness of the competition, I'd argue it reflects over-reaction to one particular result and doesn't truely canvas the current form of the team, which a power ranking should do.
First, the "expert weekend wrap" published at the completion of each round. I found the title of this enticing, but when I open the article each week I'm disappointed to find no more than a round-up of who scored and maybe a couple of other token comments. Hardly an expert wrap, and more like someone's just read the paper this morning and wrote an article about it on LU.
Secondly are the power rankings. A great innovation, but could do with some finetuning. I find the changes in these from one week to the next quite bizarre. How a team can go from first or second one week, to all of a sudden dropping 8 places on the back of one loss is a bit bizarre. You could argue it reflects the closeness of the competition, I'd argue it reflects over-reaction to one particular result and doesn't truely canvas the current form of the team, which a power ranking should do.