Liverpool: 7.5: suarez 7.0: henderson sturridge coutinho sterling gerrard 6.5: sakho skrtel flano allen mignolet 6.0: johnson agger 5.5: cissokho kolo (moses) (aspas) avg: 6.6 City: 7.5: - 7.0: toure silva aguero kompany zabaleta 6.5: nasri dzeko navas negredo kolarov hart fernandinho (jovetic) 6.0: (clichy) demichellis (lescott) 5.5: - avg: 6.6 Chelsea: 7.5: - 7.0: hazard terry cahill willian ivanovic azpilicueta 6.5: cech oscar schurrle matic etoo 6.0: luiz lampard (mata) (ba) 5.5: torres (mikel) avg: 6.5 Everton: 7.5: - 7.0: coleman 6.5: baines mirallas barkley howard lukaku (deulefeu) (oviedo) 6.0: jagielka distin osman naismith piennar barry mccarthy 5.5: (stones) (gibson) (mcgeady) avg: 6.2 Arsenal: 7.5: - 7.0: ramsey (walcott) 6.5: koscielny sagna mertesacker (ox) 6.0: ozil cazorla wilshere gibbs rosicky podolski flamini arteta giroud sczezny (vermaelen)(gnabry) 5.5: monreal avg: 6.1 United: 7.5: - 7.0: rooney 6.5: deGea RVP (januzaj) (mata) 6.0: evra valencia carrick rafael young welbeck jones smalling vidic kagawa (hernandez) 5.5: fellaini cleverly ferdinand evans (giggs) (fletcher) (zaha) (nani) avg: 5.8 Rule: The averages should be an approximation of current standings. (*players in brackets have played a minority of minutes throughout the season)
Hard to do this without being biased, so I'll just state where I disagree with yours. Also, are these marks out of 10? Based on performance or ability? City Toure and Silva are easily in a similar bracket to Suarez. Fernandinho should be a 7 at least. Chelsea Surely Hazard is a 7.5? Arsenal They were in the title race up until 6 weeks ago. To put so many of their players in the lower brackets seems a bit strange when considering the whole season. United De Gea should be in either of the top two brackets. Fantastic keeper. Januzaj should be one bracket higher just because he's carried them at times this season.
The ratings are an opinion based on this season's performance only. The beauty of it is that it forces you to be objective with the overall team rating, since the team rating has to reflect the standings. So, these separations are objective and justified: 6.6 for us and city; 6.5 chelseal; 6.2 Everton; 6.1 Arsenal; 5.8 United. So, if I consider your point about Arsenal, if most of the 6.0s were 6.5s ... how on hell then do we get Arsenal to the 6.1 rating that their standing merits? Or you point re City... if Yaya and Silva are 7.5s and Fernandinho is a 7.0 then who of them do you lower to make their team rating stay at 6.6?
I like it when people try different styles of articles on here because at times it gets a little stale but I really don't understand this one. You're trying to make real life too much like a FIFA game and that just isn't how football works. Statistics and ratings are fine and dandy when based upon solid data, but this all seems a bit too subjective for me. A team isn't the sum of it's parts. Some teams will play extraordinary football, but not achieve as much as those teams who grind out results with teams consisting of very few individual talents. Also, how many of these player ratings are due to managerial influence?
i would put gerrard,Kompany and hazard in the 7.5 category, if we win the fecking league put stevie and luis on 8 even though its not an option
I stopped reading when I saw you'd put 18 goals from midfield the World Class Toure, in the same bracket as Sterling and Henderson
By forcing the averages to be equal you're ignoring the fact that individual performances could merit higher ratings than what the team has delivered, thus making the ratings false. Gibson's been out virtually all season and McGeady has only started a couple of games btw mate.....
The players in brackets represent bench power (weighted at half only) I disagree. A team's results are a reflection of the individual performances taken as whole.
Some teams can be extremely effective without having any stand out individuals, whereas others can have 2 or 3 extremely talented individuals but lack the cohesion of the team with none. So your assertion is fundamentally flawed.
No it just means you are underating the individuals in the effective team just because they don't "stand out" Henderson has been one of the best players in the league this season but for whatever reason neutrals/rivals can't admit it
I agree, but that statement does not go against my assertion that "a team's results are a reflection of the individual performances taken as whole". Case in point, Liverpool has a wider variance of quality than City - yet at the end of the day the product on the pitch is very comparable.
I missed your reply Crumpet, sorry. This is certainly very subjective (that's why it's controversial), however it is built upon one objective caveat (see the rule). As I told Tobes, I think there is strong reason to believe that the sum of the individual parts will equal the the output on the pitch. A cohesive strong-spirited team that grinds out results will probably have less 7.5 or 7.0s than a team of genuine talents, but it will probably will have more 6.5s and fewer 5.5s to compensate and rise to their level. The work of a good manager is reflected within as it lifts every single player's performance.
People don't admit it, because they just don't agree ffs. He's massively overrated by kopites imo. He's improved this season without doubt, but one of the best players in the League? Get to ****
