Rate The Players v Accrington Stanley | Page 2 | Vital Football

Rate The Players v Accrington Stanley

Never trust Hortin's (or any other) commentary to do this on audio alone, I only ever rate if seen a live video stream or attended in person.
I may be wrong but I think it's if the full game is watched (rather than audio) on the ifollow video replay the following day, or whenever it's put up.
 
I entirely agree with all of your marks and the post Hulloutpost, alot of above marks are rubbish, we played very well throughout, had no Iuck whatsoever, and it was total effort , what are they seeing, we must stick with Clive's Mngr and push on I for one have every belief in MA and I know alot more of you are as well , thankfully.
We must be patient. Remember the Cowley's were on the point of the sack 7 weeks ago. AS Another team intent on going for the likes of Maguire and Bishop, young Draper suffered 2 headbuts going up for headers. Referee did fairly well.

come on boys
 
I entirely agree with all of your marks and the post Hulloutpost, alot of above marks are rubbish, we played very well throughout, had no Iuck whatsoever, and it was total effort , what are they seeing, we must stick with Clive's Mngr and push on I for one have every belief in MA and I know alot more of you are as well , thankfully.
We must be patient. Remember the Cowley's were on the point of the sack 7 weeks ago. AS Another team intent on going for the likes of Maguire and Bishop, young Draper suffered 2 headbuts going up for headers. Referee did fairly well.

come on boys

😯
 
Listened on ifollow.
Unfortunately, that leaves me with no option but to remove your ratings from every game this season. I have made it clear on numerous occasions that ratings should only be posted having watched the whole game - either live, live on iFollow, or on the full iFollow replay. Failure to comply with that basic but essential rule distorts the ratings of every other poster, many of whom put a lot of time and effort into their posts. How anyone can rate players from the radio is beyond my comprehension. This will take me a day's work to correct, thanks very much for that.
 
Unfortunately, that leaves me with no option but to remove your ratings from every game this season. I have made it clear on numerous occasions that ratings should only be posted having watched the whole game - either live, live on iFollow, or on the full iFollow replay. Failure to comply with that basic but essential rule distorts the ratings of every other poster, many of whom put a lot of time and effort into their posts. How anyone can rate players from the radio is beyond my comprehension. This will take me a day's work to correct, thanks very much for that.


So removing ones from when I've been too.

All so very childish but typical of this site.
 
And some completely forgetting the purpose of any and all posts on here...which is to add to site's income and hence to the funds Jules very kindly donates onwards to the club. That's why I post anything.
But some clearly forget that.
Oh and you most definitely can rate players from listening just as much as from watching. More so sometimes in fact.
 
So removing ones from when I've been too.

All so very childish but typical of this site.
It is far from childish, how much credibility do you think you now have? If you think it is possible to rate the players when you haven't watched the match, there is something wrong somewhere.

Many people enjoy this feature and spend a lot of time participating in it. I have never calculated how much time I spend running this feature every year, but it would equate to several days. A small number of rules are necessary to make it work, and everyone else is happy to comply. What makes you believe you are exempt?
 
And some completely forgetting the purpose of any and all posts on here...which is to add to site's income and hence to the funds Jules very kindly donates onwards to the club. That's why I post anything.
But some clearly forget that.
Oh and you most definitely can rate players from listening just as much as from watching. More so sometimes in fact.
Rubbish.
 
It is far from childish, how much credibility do you think you now have? If you think it is possible to rate the players when you haven't watched the match, there is something wrong somewhere.

Many people enjoy this feature and spend a lot of time participating in it. I have never calculated how much time I spend running this feature every year, but it would equate to several days. A small number of rules are necessary to make it work, and everyone else is happy to comply. What makes you believe you are exempt?

And I take time to give my ratings. They are properly considered.
But you'd happily take joke ones that comply with rules over mine.
And I don't disregard rules by the way.
I watch live or on ifollow but listening comes first before watching the highlights/replay.
 
Here are the rules again:

As the new season begins, I thought this might be a good time to reiterate the theory behind the 'Rate The Players' feature.

First of all, everyone is welcome to post their marks, the proviso being that you actually saw the game. That usually means attending in person, but also applies to watching the game live on television, iFollow or similar medium. It also includes watching the whole thing back on iFollow during the week after the game, but watch the deadline!

For the uninitiated, all you have to do is award a mark out of 10 for each player. I will post the players to rate immediately after the final whistle. Not all players who take the field will be rated - we usually use 20 minutes on the pitch as the cutoff, so don't be too surprised if you see the name of a late substitute omitted, for example.

The par score is 6.0: by definition, that essentially means that the player has done what was expected of them, no more, no less. In effect, that means awarding 6.0 if the player has done his job. For instance, Josh Griffiths cannot really be awarded 7.0 if he hasn't had a shot to save. Tom Hopper is unlikely to merit 6.0 if he has missed a penalty and three sitters. Anthony Scully deserves higher than 6.0 if he has scored a hat-trick. Please avoid emotional responses such as giving everyone 10.0 following a good performance - it is utterly illogical and ultimately pointless. Ask yourself how likely it is that every player on the pitch returned a flawless performance, never mind one of them. Perfect tens should be as rare as a Steve Evans diet.

We use half-marks too, so you may like to use a scientific method such as deducting half a mark if the player commits a costly error, or adding half a mark if they do something special. If you prefer to use plain old intuition, that is just as good. All we ask is that you remain consistent within your own marking. Do not be influenced by what someone else has posted - there is absolutely nothing to suggest they are right and you are wrong. We all see games differently, and we are interested in what you have to say, not a consensus. The important point is this: provided your marks are consistent against each other, the overall result should be reliable.

Please give us your comments too. There are a great many exiles on here who cannot make the majority of games, and the comments are often the most interesting and revealing part.

There will always be a deadline for submissions, usually 5pm on Tuesday after a Saturday game, and 5pm on Thursday for a Tuesday night. This gives me time to collate and publish the results before the next match.

Once a month, I will write up a report detailing each player's average score. At the end of the season, all the numbers are added up and we find out who has been voted Player of the Season by Vital members.

Finally, please refrain from criticising or commenting on the marks given by someone else. As we have already said, we all see the game differently; assuming there are no private agenda, no one is right, no one is wrong. The match thread is the place for debate, this thread is for marks and comments only.
 
Speaking for myself, I'm a traditionalist and only mark the players if I've been present at the match in person.

Again as far as I'm concerned, no player could ever be bad enough to rate less than 4 (even Derek Hood always managed a 4 from me) or good enough to be a 10.

Furthermore - and I don't know if anyone else may wish to adopt this - if a player scores a goal it's an automatic minimum of 6 no matter how rubbish they may otherwise have been. Two goals is an automatic minimum of 7, three goals is at least 8 and four goals a 9. So if I ever did see a player score five goals in a match then that would be a 10.
 
Speaking for myself, I'm a traditionalist and only mark the players if I've been present at the match in person.

Again as far as I'm concerned, no player could ever be bad enough to rate less than 4 (even Derek Hood always managed a 4 from me) or good enough to be a 10.

Furthermore - and I don't know if anyone else may wish to adopt this - if a player scores a goal it's an automatic minimum of 6 no matter how rubbish they may otherwise have been. Two goals is an automatic minimum of 7, three goals is at least 8 and four goals a 9. So if I ever did see a player score five goals in a match then that would be a 10.
If somebody got five it would indeed be a bit mean spirited not to award a 10!