Harlequins
The Return of the Player Performance Survey
By DOK
September 3 2017
Those of you with long memories will remember we used to do this. After each game we rate the players performance on a scale of 1-5 and then later some sort of analysis of the results is produced. As I remember, an away game would usually generate about 10 responses and a home game around 25-30. We'll see if it's worth doing away games - maybe those that are televised.
Now I agree after the first defeat of the season it may not be the ideal time to start one of these, but it's the first game of the season, so what the hell. I want to see if we can get a full season's worth.
Which brings us to PARTICIPATION. Yes, your participation. If this only gets a few votes it's going to fall flat on it's backside. So please take the time to click 15 simple radio buttons.
As requested on the form I'd ask you not to play silly Bs with this. Yes, you can enter more than one form, yes you can enter all 1s (or 5s even!) - Please Don't! It wrecks it for the people taking it seriously.
And so, without further ado here is the survey
If you have problems viewing this try the "View a Printer Friendly version of this Story" link below the survey.
Or use this link which will take you to the Google form
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleuponThe Return of the Player Performance Survey
Discussion started by ComeAllWithin.co.uk , 05/09/2017 11:28
ComeAllWithin.co.uk
05/09/2017 11:28
05/09/2017 11:28
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017:09:05:23:56:12 by DOK.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017:09:05:23:56:12 by DOK.
Well this should be fun! 
All I'd say is don't punish the players, just give them an honest assessment of performance.
Cheers.
All I'd say is don't punish the players, just give them an honest assessment of performance.
Cheers.
Oh - and those of you who use Google forms will know it doesn't collect IP addresses or email addresses, so your entry is totally anonymous - honestly!
Don't remember this from before, but seems like a good idea.
Just completed and submitted and it says page can't be displayed, so not sure if I've submitted properly. I'll try again, hope that doesn't cause any issues. I'm not trying to skew the results!
Just completed and submitted and it says page can't be displayed, so not sure if I've submitted properly. I'll try again, hope that doesn't cause any issues. I'm not trying to skew the results!
Is it possible to add a rating for the DOR as well?
Some of the papers include this for use of tactics, timing of subs etc
Some of the papers include this for use of tactics, timing of subs etc
I will definitely participate in this for the home games - I recently canned my BT Sport subscription unfortunately.
Some suggestions if I may...
Can you provide a bit of a description for each performance point - this should give us a common understanding and give more meaningful analysis, for instance if I was being brief:
1: Absolute liability; had a direct negative impact on the result/team as a whole
2: Bad day at the office: did more wrong than right
3: Did the basics well; some pros and cons but overall solid performance
4: #QuinsStyle; played to their potential, positive contribution to team performance
5: Game changer; had a direct positive impact on the result/team as a whole
Perhaps also a no-opinion option for each player - I would be guessing if I gave an individual rating to all 23 players without re-watching the game (sans beer).
Some suggestions if I may...
Can you provide a bit of a description for each performance point - this should give us a common understanding and give more meaningful analysis, for instance if I was being brief:
1: Absolute liability; had a direct negative impact on the result/team as a whole
2: Bad day at the office: did more wrong than right
3: Did the basics well; some pros and cons but overall solid performance
4: #QuinsStyle; played to their potential, positive contribution to team performance
5: Game changer; had a direct positive impact on the result/team as a whole
Perhaps also a no-opinion option for each player - I would be guessing if I gave an individual rating to all 23 players without re-watching the game (sans beer).
Well, it's a very good point and one I flip flopped over. I think last time we used something like awful, poor, average, good, excellent and people would argue over the exact meanings. I thought if I didn't name what a 1,2 or 3 was then people would kind of pick their own values. But looking at your suggestions G-Quin they seem eminently sensible. I'll add them to the form.
I am certainly not going to add a DOR question, I'm not in the business of pouring petrol on flames. I might include one of "Game Management", I guess that would cover it. Good thinking. Will do that next time (If I change it now only people voting from now on will get to use it).
On the no-opinion option I could make that a separate option or I could just remove the requirement for entering something for every player. It might make calculating averages more interesting, but would do the job. I had thought just entering "3" would solve it, but I see actually that's a kind of positive vote when you don't mean that.
If you have a query on whether your form worked or not, make a note of the time and PM/Email me. It doesn't matter too much if you enter the same form twice a few minutes apart, I'll pick that up and just delete one of them.
Glad there seems to be a positive feeling about this. When we did it before, people seemed to find the results interesting. (And they seemed pretty accurate too).
I am certainly not going to add a DOR question, I'm not in the business of pouring petrol on flames.
I might include one of "Game Management", I guess that would cover it. Good thinking. Will do that next time (If I change it now only people voting from now on will get to use it).
On the no-opinion option I could make that a separate option or I could just remove the requirement for entering something for every player. It might make calculating averages more interesting, but would do the job. I had thought just entering "3" would solve it, but I see actually that's a kind of positive vote when you don't mean that.
If you have a query on whether your form worked or not, make a note of the time and PM/Email me. It doesn't matter too much if you enter the same form twice a few minutes apart, I'll pick that up and just delete one of them.
Glad there seems to be a positive feeling about this. When we did it before, people seemed to find the results interesting. (And they seemed pretty accurate too).
And finally don't forget the premiershiprugby.tv page for catching up with the away matches that you can't attend! (or for re-living the pain of the LDH!)
Leave it as it is, pretty straight forward. Even if people apply different criteria, it's all relative.
In any case, ranking people from 1-5 is not that complicated.
In any case, ranking people from 1-5 is not that complicated.
I'd love to do it right now, I'm quite excited by this. I'd say when we have most responses in. So maybe Wednesday Thursday?
On a technical point - filling this in on an iPhone every time you score a player it leaps, scrolling down the page and says you haven't scored them all...just me or anyone else?
Ah yes. Seems to be some techie issues over a Google form embedded in an iframe accessed from an iPhone. I just used the code snippet Google provided which uses an iframe. Having Googled the problem a bit, I tried a solution someone suggested, can you see if it's any better now? Thanks.
Conversely if anyone else has problems with the form can you let me know? It's all glued together with other people's stuff (Google and SportNetwork) but there maybe some tweaking I can do.
Conversely if anyone else has problems with the form can you let me know? It's all glued together with other people's stuff (Google and SportNetwork) but there maybe some tweaking I can do.
Quote:RodneyRegis
Throw the iPhone in the bin.
Sadly I'm one the few Quins fans that isn't a member of the super rich elite
Quote:RodneyRegis
Leave it as it is, pretty straight forward. Even if people apply different criteria, it's all relative.
In any case, ranking people from 1-5 is not that complicated.
Very true Rodney very true. I'm probably overthinking it with my procurement hat on... at least we don't have to moderate to consensus!
DOK - if this feeds into a google doc, you could do some pretty cool analysis and visualisation very easily by making a data connection to something like Qlik Sense (it's free).
Quote:G-Quin
DOK - if this feeds into a google doc, you could do some pretty cool analysis and visualisation very easily by making a data connection to something like Qlik Sense (it's free).
Ah....Well I was going to produce the first analysis, just so people could get some idea of how it works and then see if I could get a volunteer (maybe someone who can fly what you suggest, maybe an Excel wizard) to take over...
Any volunteers (this is the part where tumbleweed usually rolls past in the silence...)
Quote:T-Bone
Don't remember this from before, but seems like a good idea.
Just completed and submitted and it says page can't be displayed, so not sure if I've submitted properly. I'll try again, hope that doesn't cause any issues. I'm not trying to skew the results!
The sportnetwork site is a bit flaky at the moment. Suggest anyone who doesn't get the confirmation their survey has been received retries it.
Quote:DOKQuote:G-Quin
DOK - if this feeds into a google doc, you could do some pretty cool analysis and visualisation very easily by making a data connection to something like Qlik Sense (it's free).
Ah....Well I was going to produce the first analysis, just so people could get some idea of how it works and then see if I could get a volunteer (maybe someone who can fly what you suggest, maybe an Excel wizard) to take over...
Any volunteers (this is the part where tumbleweed usually rolls past in the silence...)
Send it to me when you have the data and I'll have a look...
We have an impressive 47 responses! 40 yesterday and 7 today.
So I think I'll leave it for the rest of today and maybe try and get the analysis out for tomorrow?
I am so happy with you all for responding here! I've always thought it an interesting and fun exercise, but obviously the more people we get the better.
So I think I'll leave it for the rest of today and maybe try and get the analysis out for tomorrow?
I am so happy with you all for responding here! I've always thought it an interesting and fun exercise, but obviously the more people we get the better.
Good work! Thanks.
If at first you don't succeed, Try, Try and Try again.
If at first you don't succeed, Try, Try and Try again.
Will obviously be much more interesting with a few games played, but here's some early analysis:
Marchant is our MOTM by miles (ave 3.83 and the only player with a mode score above 3 with 31 4s and 4 5s), with Walker and Smith after. Robshaw was our best forward. Brown is our least valuabale player (2.04, with the most 1s - 9), followed by Roberts and Ward.
The average points awarded per respondent were 2.81 - the most was 3.47 and the least 1.93.
We weren't too harsh - 43% of marks were 3s. 4% 1s and 2% 5s.
The least variation was for Will Collier, who got 76% 3s. The most divided opinion was for Marcus Smith, who managed 3 5s and a 1 (?)
Everyone appears to have taken it seriously, ie no 1s or 5s across the board, so I haven't omitted anything.
Sorry for spacing. Not sure how to do tables. I'll do an external link to analysis when we've got some more data.
Player Average Mode
[Joe Marchant] 3.83 4
[Charlie Walker] 3.39 3
[Marcus Smith] 3.35 3
[Chris Robshaw] 3.33 3
[Danny Care] 3.17 3
[Will Collier] 2.93 3
[Ben Glynn] 2.85 3
[Marland Yarde] 2.70 3
[Joe Marler] 2.54 2
[Jack Clifford] 2.52 3
[James Horwill (c)] 2.48 2
[Rob Buchanan] 2.48 2
[Dave Ward] 2.43 2
[Jamie Roberts] 2.17 2
[Mike Brown] 2.04 2
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017:09:05:15:42:28 by RodneyRegis.
Marchant is our MOTM by miles (ave 3.83 and the only player with a mode score above 3 with 31 4s and 4 5s), with Walker and Smith after. Robshaw was our best forward. Brown is our least valuabale player (2.04, with the most 1s - 9), followed by Roberts and Ward.
The average points awarded per respondent were 2.81 - the most was 3.47 and the least 1.93.
We weren't too harsh - 43% of marks were 3s. 4% 1s and 2% 5s.
The least variation was for Will Collier, who got 76% 3s. The most divided opinion was for Marcus Smith, who managed 3 5s and a 1 (?)
Everyone appears to have taken it seriously, ie no 1s or 5s across the board, so I haven't omitted anything.
Sorry for spacing. Not sure how to do tables. I'll do an external link to analysis when we've got some more data.
Player Average Mode
[Joe Marchant] 3.83 4
[Charlie Walker] 3.39 3
[Marcus Smith] 3.35 3
[Chris Robshaw] 3.33 3
[Danny Care] 3.17 3
[Will Collier] 2.93 3
[Ben Glynn] 2.85 3
[Marland Yarde] 2.70 3
[Joe Marler] 2.54 2
[Jack Clifford] 2.52 3
[James Horwill (c)] 2.48 2
[Rob Buchanan] 2.48 2
[Dave Ward] 2.43 2
[Jamie Roberts] 2.17 2
[Mike Brown] 2.04 2
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017:09:05:15:42:28 by RodneyRegis.
Brownie is getting some stick then!
If at first you don't succeed, Try, Try and Try again.
If at first you don't succeed, Try, Try and Try again.
Interesting stuff, thanks. Seems odd that Marler and Horwill don't get the same treatment as Brown
Well, Brown played well all game (initial knock on due to a bad bounce apart). But he got marched back 10 yards for something he said to the ref and he got a yellow card at an important time for us just as we were getting back in the game.
The card, bombed try and backchat did for Mike.
I'd certainly have marked him above Roberts though.
17 people marked Roberts ahead of Brown, 11 marked Brown ahead, so opinion was divided.
Forwards averaged 2.7, backs 2.95.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017:09:05:16:30:38 by RodneyRegis.
I'd certainly have marked him above Roberts though.
17 people marked Roberts ahead of Brown, 11 marked Brown ahead, so opinion was divided.
Forwards averaged 2.7, backs 2.95.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017:09:05:16:30:38 by RodneyRegis.
This Thread has been closed
