Just out of interest - how do you rate players?

[Frenzy.]

Each week there is usually a 3-2-1 thread and most weeks a ratings (0-10) thread.

I'm interested to know how different people arrive at their conclusions.

Who uses stats? Who does it all visually? Who rewards singular or multiple stand out plays? Who uses a mental system based on offence, defence and/or whatever other categories you could use?

This is not a fight thread!! I really want to know how people do it.

 

[Macca]

I start everyone off on 5. I then use stats and my own opinion to add or deduct points. When I am done with the 0 - 10's I take the top 3 and put them in my 3-2-1's.

 

[Jono078]

I just base mine on who pulled off the big plays, who was most concistent, and who stood up and who tried their hardest.

 

[MightySharks]

As I go to all the games it is hard to do it any other way than visually. You make mental notes when someone does something good or bad. At the end of the game you add up your mental notes and come up with your 3, 2 and 1. Hardly an exact science but it is the best I have got.

 

[Dread]

I don't normally rate players.

My 3-2-1 is mostly visual. I like to give the 3 and usually 2 to players who dominated the game, and often throw one point at a player who came up with a big play, or made an impact, or something like that.

If we lose, I try to find the players who did the least wrong.

 

[millersnose]

6 is above average footy - 1st grade standard and the minimum for mine

the rest is obvious

 

[newman]

I rate like this.

1 is pathetic. Like, drops EVERY ball and misses EVERY tackle and allows the other team to win deliberately.
10 is perfect. Does EVERYTHING right. No mistakes, not even a wrong option, sprints back on side, doesnt rest and kills about three opposition players. And theyd have to score a bunch of points too.
5 is average. Does some good things, some bad. Doesnt stand out at all, but isnt atrocious.

No player in the NRL is going to get either a 1 or a ten. No one can be THAT woeful, or that good.

But its a bit of a sliding scale and based on prior performances. BK may play a game where he is solid if unspectacular and hell get a 6.5 for it. Bird plays an identical game and hell get around a 7 to 7.5 You know that BK has a lot more in him and can easily get a higher score and Bird cant so I reward them accordingly. Same with Peach. If he has a solid game but makes some stupid errors, im likely to punish him more for that than I would, say Isemonger, cause you know that Peach shouldnt be doing that but Ise has a history of that, and if he plays well, youll ignore the errors to a degree. There really are a million variables.

Its hard to rate guys like Cov. He can PLAY sh*thouse, but win us the game with good kicking. His general play warrants a four, but as hes won the game you bump him up a coupla points.

I think im a pretty hard marker when all is said and done.



And that, my friends, is the ugliest post I have ever made.

Interesting thread however.

 

[Macca]

So if 5 is average then 4 is a negative performance? If so, everyone should start on 5. You can't start a game already in the negative.

 

[Mr Angry]

10 is the perfect game for a person in the position they played.

I simply subtract from there.

 

[Frenzy.]

Thanks for replies so far interesting stuff.

I better put in how I do it.

For 3,2,1 I am basically the same as Dread. I like to give the points to the people who have the most impact or influence on the game. The difference is I rarely give a point just for a good play - the same guy might of made 10 bad plays to the 1 standout play is why I don't do that.

If I do 0-10 I do it kind of like newman except I would call a 10 excellent rather than perfect. I don't know how RLW does theirs for example but they have given 10s for exceptional games. Noddy was the last and I know he made errors in that game vs Newcastle but he was exceptional overall.

Mine go something like this and like everyone else they are just my own guidelines.

10 Excellent
9 Very good
8 Very good
7 good
6 good
5 satisfactory
4 satisfactory
3 unsatisfactory
2 unsatisfactory
1 on ya bike
0 sendoff

No I am not a schoolteacher! :lol:

 

[Frenzy.]

10 is the perfect game for a person in the position they played.

I simply subtract from there.

Interesting Angry man.

Do you then add back on as you go?

e.g. dropped ball take off .5 or whatever (I know it's not that exact) then they get the .5 back if they pull off a smasherooni tackle??

 

[Aries]

So if 5 is average then 4 is a negative performance? If so, everyone should start on 5. You can't start a game already in the negative.

Dunno bout that, I reckon Jarred Anderson use to start in the negative :lol:

 

[Mr Angry]

Interesting Angry man.

Do you then add back on as you go?

e.g. dropped ball take off .5 or whatever (I know it's not that exact) then they get the .5 back if they pull off a smasherooni tackle??

Not really more like he was 2 from a 10 or he was 4 from a 10, is my thinking.

For the 3-2-1 stuff. Who we would have really missed had they not been there.

 

[Frenzy.]

Oki doki

 

[SirShire]

Rate the best and the worst, then work on all in between - based on kicking, running stats, defence and support play/decoy running.

 

[Sheros los Deros]

Sometimes I check the NRL stats to confirm my intuitive assessment of player performance.

For me 5 is a pretty average game. Anyhting less than that is a poor perfomance. I try to imagine what RLW might award a player. Those rating are my yardstick.

 

[White Poiner]

I just do is visually, Make mental notes of big plays and bad plays. Not really serious of this sought of thing i just pick who was the 3 best sharks players in my opinion on the night. Then post it on the forum.

 

[spirit of league]

for me it's a combination. i have an idea in my head from watching the game, then i'll check it against nrl stats (when i have time / could be bothered).

like newman i naturally tend to grade a players score against their own innate ability, but i consciously re-adjust my scores to try to eliminate this bias

i expect a good game so i generally use 7 as my standard mark for a player who plays a good solid game. 8 is a very good game. 9 outstanding. 10 probably never happen.

6 is ok but could be better. 5 and under is disappointing. i think maybe i should move my median down 1 spot to 6 so i have more scope on either side to express performance, but i wouldn't feel right giving somebody a 6 for a good solid game. call me fluffy if you like !

3-2-1 is also based on a combination, but perhaps with more gut instinct, especially the 1 point which may be used to recognize a player who showed great improvement or did something outstanding to turn the game. 3 & 2 generally go to those i think had the most influence and made the biggest contribution

 

[G-Up]

2 Hats
one with numbers
one with names

How else

 

[pogo]

maybe you guys should adopt the backflip/shire nark approach.............that is give bird and simmons 4 or 5 maximum and nutley 10 every week.