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 2017:09:09:13:14:16 by DOK.

Well, what do you think. It's midnight, so you can tell I put in a bit more time than I intended on this. Is the format OK/attractive for a results posting?

It seemed to me having the bars horizontally in the graphic used the space most efficiently, and breaking the graphics up player by player seemed to keep it most relevant. I originally had a big long graphic from 1-15, then the averages from 1-15, then the write up by player. However that required a lot of toing and froing even on a PC, so worse on a phone/tablet.

Anyway, am open to suggestions for improvement so fire away...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017:09:06:00:03:29 by DOK.

Good work!

Good work. Like the format, hope you are able to keep it up.

Interesting that even after most posters, me included, moaned about what a useless performance it was, not a single player got a really low average. Wonder if it's that as fans we can't bring ourselves to really mark down one of our players, whether we calm down after a day or so, or whether we feel that, while the performance really wasn't very good, it wasn't abysmal either.

From the number of angry threads you'd expect everyone to get 1 across the board.

I think the funny thing is you get honest opinions, because of the number of voters and the fact even the angry people recognise players trying. I honestly thought Horwill had a bad day at the office, and lo he was the poorest forward.

Personally I thought Marland Yarde's mark a bit low and similar for Mike Brown - but I think other people marked that yellow card harder than i did. It's true it may have cost us a win!

Jamie Roberts, on the other hand, needs to work out how to work with us and his mark reflects that.

But if you think of the performance, we got a bonus point for four tries, we nearly came back and stole the game. It can't have been all bad!

Be interesting to see how this evolves in the next few games.

interesting, thanks DOK

Nice!

If at first you don't succeed, Try, Try and Try again.

Very interesting and I like the format DOK.

I agree with you that Yarde has been unfairly marked down, although for me Brown's low mark is a fair reflection of an ill-disciplined and largely ineffective display.

What is interesting is that 21 people obviously thought that Roberts' display was a decent 3/5. I can't understand that one at all.

Also who gave Marcus Smith a 1?!

Well, as I say it's completely anonymous - which is both good and bad!

Think next time, when you won't have to fill in lines for players you can't really comment on, might give a more accurate picture of Roberts. And in the limited way we seem to be using him, some might say he did OK.

Quote:

DOK
Well, as I say it's completely anonymous - which is both good and bad!
Think next time, when you won't have to fill in lines for players you can't really comment on, might give a more accurate picture of Roberts. And in the limited way we seem to be using him, some might say he did OK.

What do you mean about not filling in lines for players?You can't change the format or how do we compare results....

Great initiative on this sir, very interesting to see.

Well, I think I got something wrong. I said "if you don't really know how a player did, put him down as a 3". Which may mean players who otherwise might be marked low by those who actually watched them and could form an opinion would be bolstered by all the 3s.

I said next time out, if you don't know how a player did then just don't fill anything in. So a player might only get 10 votes, but if they're all 2s, then his average is 2. If he gets 10 2s and 40 3s under the scheme I set out, then his score is 2.80 which has inflated his score.

People have commentated how no-one really scored low in the London Irish results, I think maybe without the 3 default, we'll see a few more swings.

There's going to be a few adjustments in the initial stages (that's part of why I wanted to start ASAP). For example, I remembered we used to rate the referee as well, and we'll be doing that from now on. Some refs scored 4, honestly!

There was a suggestion we should also rate "Game management - the use of substitutes, the timing of them, the tactics, maybe changes at half time". I'm not especially keen on this but happy to include it and see how it goes. What do people think?

Dunno - if you start making these changes it becomes harder to compare game to game - say somebody gets 4s across the board - an average of 4, but one player only gets marked once for 5- that player gets an average of 5. I think anybody who can be bothered to make the effort to mark players is going to have a fair idea of what Mark to give each one. Likewise marking "game management" is pretty spurious as the criteria are different than for the rest of the marks.

Well, I'm going to give them a try for the next game and see what people think. Apologies, it does mean one game is not going to be quite as comparable as the rest. I'll see what sort of numbers we get voting in case we get exactly the scenario you outline.

Have to say, not convinced by the game management thing. It was suggested by COYQ_2017 as a DOR vote (he hates the DOR), but again exactly what 1-5 means for players is not what you'd vote for a DOR. I'm starting to move towards not implementing this. What do people think?

Interesting feedback on how people see performances. I might contribute now I can see how it works.

Hi! Its me again...

A score on the matchday management by the Coaches would be very interesting I feel.

If at first you don't succeed, Try, Try and Try again.

Not sure how useful a game management score would be, and people would probably be scoring it for their own different reasons.

Instead of people not giving a player a score if they can't remember how they did, can't you add a "don't know" option? Or would this amount to the same thing in terms of averages?

As Rodney says, I'd imagine those who take the time to score would probably have an idea how all the players did, but I guess we'll see over the next few weeks

This is fascinating. Well done, and thank you.

I will be curious to see how opinions vary on a win or a loss, but we'll probably need a dozen or so games before we start to see if there's a pattern.

OK maybe a Matchday Management option with an opportunity to justify the score?

If at first you don't succeed, Try, Try and Try again.

It all sounds like throwing petrol on flames to me!