Forza Inter Ratings 2015/2016

[Y&h]

First of all, I'd like to thank Handayo & Dylan for their help in making this little project happen.

Also, I'd like to apologize for the delay since we ran into some problems that needed solving.


Let's get down to business!


As I posted a month ago in the Rules thread, I started this new rating system that will help us get an estimation on the players' performance season long. Just to avoid any confusion for the new members, unlike Frisko's thread where the ratings are based on La Gazzeta's reviews, this one will give FIF members the chance to voice their opinion of each player after a game. It's a simple process, you click on the link bellow and select a number under each player, sub, and the manager then you click send. You can also access this survey through smartphones. At the end of each month, I'll try to get the average of each player and post them here.

If there's one thing I ask is that you abandon the trolling when casting your vote. Any hate or exaggeration and your votes will be removed. If that negative attitude becomes a habit, I'll shut down the operation publicly and restrict it to a panel of FIF members. Guys, I'm respecting and trusting you and I hope you treat me and this new feature in the same way and remember...

Forza Inter!

The Ratings:

Better Resolution​

For any discussions or remarks, please go back to the Rules thread.

 

[Y&h]

[ratings]1Q0mV_Pzd46WGkJXNJwAsq2LgvzuiI88Y5I8Eg4rCMFw[/ratings]

 

[wera]

First off, good luck with all this.

Can we also have a thread for discussing our ratings, or should we do it here. My highest scores were 7 for Jovetić and Miranda (and also Mancini), while most of the others, especially our midfield, got lower scores for being not that great at all. And still I feel generous giving 7s and 6.5s, but I have to set the standard for myself now.

If a goalkeeper has nothing to do for the whole match (like Handanović on Gameday 1), I will give a 4 or 5, I still have to decide. While I feel that players that did more bad than good deserve less than a 4.

Players that get injured right away/get subbed quickly, will get a low score too, because it's unfair to give a 5 when a 5 should be an average score for a player that actually did something. Sure, it wasn't Icardi's fault that he got injured, but I'll compensate next time he'll play if giving him a low score because of not playing is unfair to some of you.

 

[Shaun]

I personally feel a no vote option should be in place. Like wera I was a little conflicted about how to rate Icardi because of his injury. The same problem will arise when players come on in the 90th minute. Or do you suggest to simply not give them a rating?

 

[JJM]

I personally feel a note vote option should be in place. Like wera I was a little conflicted about how to rate Icardi because of his injury. The same problem will arise when players come on in the 90th minute. Or do you suggest to simply not give them a rating?

I didn't give them a rating...only fair imho

 

[armin_z]

Why would you give Handanovic a 4 if he hadn't anything to do all game. I left it blank

 

[wera]

Like I said, we need to decide what to do with those that you would rather keep void. If that is a possibility, I will compensate the next time certain players play so overall scores will be more accurate.

And I gave Handanović a 5, I think.

 

[ForzaNerazzurro]

I think it depends on people's interpretation of the ratings.
Some might consider a very good performance to be an 8, others would say it's a 7, some might think an abysmal performance is 4 and others think it's 2 etc.

I believe you should write us a guideline to better understand the numerical ratings. something along the lines of:

5: average
6: above average
7: good
8: very good

and so on.

 

[wera]

No. It's better for every person to have their own system.

I do feel tho that a player needs to put in a perfect performance for a 10. You know, one in a million performance.

 

[ForzaNerazzurro]

No. It's better for every person to have their own system.

But all the votes are collected in the poll, the end result could be irrelevant.

 

[wera]

Still. The end result is the average that was submitted, some will give friendly votes, some will be pedantic like Simon Cowell, and different voters is what makes a poll interesting. We can give numbers meaning when the season ends, I feel it's better that way.

 

[ForzaNerazzurro]

Still. The end result is the average that was submitted, some will give friendly votes, some will be pedantic like Simon Cowell, and different voters is what makes a poll interesting. We can give numbers meaning when the season ends, I feel it's better that way.

The thing is, say both of us thought Murillo had a fantastic game against whoever, I give him a rating of 9 and you give him a rating of 6.5 even though both of us share the exact same opinion, then think of the other 20 or so people who vote who do the same thing, the poll is then really inaccurate and means pretty much nothing.

I feel that some sort of range needs to be set as to what is good and what is not, at least.

 

[wera]

Use your knowledge of the football game and set some standard for yourself. Murillo gets 6.5 from me because he played a good game, but the opposition was also of a lower quality. If Miranda and Murillo manage to stop high-scoring sides like Roma or Juve to only have 2 shots off-target, they definately deserve a high score, depending on the amount of interceptions, tackles, headers won and amount of mistakes...

Say if I gave Jovetić a 7 now for a good game, and then against Carpi he HAS THE SAME game, best attacking player on the field that scores in the last second, giving him a score that is considerably less or more than against Atalanta would wrong. If you keep giving Murillo the same type of scores for the same kind of performances, it doesn't matter if it's 6.5 or 9, just that you're consistent.

 

[ForzaNerazzurro]

Use your knowledge of the football game and set some standard for yourself. Murillo gets 6.5 from me because he played a good game, but the opposition was also of a lower quality. If Miranda and Murillo manage to stop high-scoring sides like Roma or Juve to only have 2 shots off-target, they definately deserve a high score, depending on the amount of interceptions, tackles, headers won and amount of mistakes...

Say if I gave Jovetić a 7 now for a good game, and then against Carpi he HAS THE SAME game, best attacking player on the field that scores in the last second, giving him a score that is considerably less or more than against Atalanta would wrong. If you keep giving Murillo the same type of scores for the same kind of performances, it doesn't matter if it's 6.5 or 9, just that you're consistent.

I see where you're coming from, but having it that way would take quite a few matches for the scores to settle in and become consistent, also, for people who haven't took part in the vote or haven't kept up with the scores from all previous polls would make the score hard to understand.

Having a guideline wouldn't hurt eitherway.

 

[wera]

So let's try to have a public annoucement for all FIF members, if you watched the game, come and vote!

Some shit like that.

 

[Ronin]

Voted. This is great.

 

[Y&h]

Thanks guys.

As of tonight we have 31 participations and the overall results are somewhat similar. For instance, the defense in general had a favorable result in comparison to the midfield's poor one bar Kondogbia who received encouraging votes. However, there is an interesting contrast between the voters when it comes to the evaluation of guys like Medel, Brozovic, and Gnoukouri as their results varied between 4 to 7. The same happened with Icardi but I guess there was a confusion on how to rate him. As of next week, if a player gets an early injury (let's hope not..) or had little action like Handanovic then you can either skip him or use your judgement to evaluate a certain action taken earlier like a missed clear cut chance or a great early save that could have turned things against us.. etc.

Guys, since this is the first time, I'll keep the voting open for an additional day (or two if you want) before I post the results but I need your suggestions on the future time limit.

Is 48 hours good?


@ForzaKovacic: I understand where you're coming from but I decided to keep this one guide free as I feared that my interpretation for certain numbers will shut people out. If some members require assistance then I guess we can discuss it but I tend to agree with wera on this point.

So let's try to have a public annoucement for all FIF members, if you watched the game, come and vote!

Some shit like that.

I may work on it during the final injury minutes of a game and once it ends I'll inform everyone through the match thread. At least for the next 2-3 games until people get the hang of its time and place.

 

[Wobblz]

As of next week, if a player gets an early injury (let's hope not..) or had little action like Handanovic then you can either skip him or use your judgement to evaluate a certain action taken earlier like a missed clear cut chance or a great early save that could have turned things against us.. etc.

I think we should have an "N/A" rating for early and late subs. I skipped rating people like Manaj and Icardi as they couldn't show anything at all. Also I think it would be nice to come up with some text based backing of the rating system so people can relate to, maybe some would rate a player's performance as Excellent with a 10, where others would figure that 8 is a sufficient rating for an excellent performance and a 10 is reserved for some Messiesque on steroids out-of-the-world performance. Also the Google graphs on the results page are very uninformative I don't know whether we can do something about it but showing IIRC percentages on the pie chart is useless - better show the ratios of ratings.

 

[Shaun]

Is it possible for there to be a link to the results?

Btw, who was the twat who gave Miranda and Mancini a 10?

 

[Y&h]

Next time I'll add the N/A instead of the blank spot. :thumbsup:

On the text guide, like I said to Forza Kovacic, I'm willing to listen to suggestions but it needs everyone's input since I don't to impose anything.

As for the ratios, don't worry since that was the original idea. I didn't like the pie charts too.

@Shaun :lala: