Wellington Phoenix Men

Player of the year so far

24 replies · 218 views
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Player of the year so far

Oi Oi Edgecumbe... lets have a clean sheet

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Had a look at Back of the Net's player ratings for Nix, and there is very little clue there about who is having the best season so far, so...
 
In an idle moment, I went back over the player ratings for the first round. Sorry, to be consistent I only looked at mine or WolfBen's, and although the scoring is hardly foolproof,  and some players have only had a couple of games, giving them a big advantage or disadvantage, here's how it's looking:
Siggy ave 7.5 (tot 30, 4 games)
Paston 7.25 (tot 14.5, 2 games)
Smeltz 7 (tot 42, 6)
Gao 6.8 (tot 34, 5)
Moss 6.8 (tot 34, 5)
Brown 6.6 (tot 20, 3)
Plodder 6.5 (13, 2)
Covs 6.4 (tot 32, 5)
Durante 6 (tot 36, 6)
Ferrante 5.8 (tot 35, 6)
Daniel 5.8 (29, 5)
Locky 5.8 (40.5, 7)
Muscat 5.6 (17, 3)
Johnno 5.5 (33, 6)
McCain 5.2 ( 26, 5)
Kwassy 5 (30, 6)
Leo 5 (10, 2)
Dodd 5 (20, 4)
Hearfield 4.4 (22, 4)
Mully 4.3 (13, 3)
 
Well it might not tell us too much, but some players have got to pick up their act.
 

Oi Oi Edgecumbe... lets have a clean sheet

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
valeo2008-10-13 23:02:50

a.haak

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Paston way too high on the list, Lochy too low. Siggy's been good, but not not that good.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
OOE, Are they just based on yours and/or Wolfben's ratings?  If so, wont they be a tad coloured by personal player preferences?
 

I know, I know, its serious!

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
Paston way too high on the list, Lochy too low. Siggy's been good, but not not that good.


Lochy has been crap this year. Deserves his low rating. Isn't half the player that he was last year
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Plodder's a bit high!

And Dodd may be a tad unjustified as I remember giving him a 0 I think, and a couple of 1's.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Maybe needs to be some kind of weighted average?

Any statisticians around?
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Xcellent wrote:

el grapadura wrote:
Paston way too high on the list, Lochy too low. Siggy's been good, but not not that good.
Lochy has been crap this year. Deserves his low rating. Isn't half the player that he was last year


He was poor in the first few games, but has played much better in the last three. Undoubtedly his improved form is one of the reason why we've picked up 4 points from the last 2 games.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Dodd has played a lot better than that - and this coming from one of his biggest critics last season. I think he's getting better and better.
 
I'm surprised at Hearfield's low rating. he might not be scoring but his off the ball work and dragging opposition players out of position has been good. He looks a bit more inventive with the ball than some.
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
Xcellent wrote:

el grapadura wrote:
Paston way too high on the list, Lochy too low. Siggy's been good, but not not that good.
Lochy has been crap this year. Deserves his low rating. Isn't half the player that he was last year


He was poor in the first few games, but has played much better in the last three. Undoubtedly his improved form is one of the reason why we've picked up 4 points from the last 2 games.


Granted he has inproved. but i dont think it has been that dramatic to say he is playing anywhere near what he was last year. His play is so one dimensional and telegraphed this year compared to last year.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Xcellent wrote:

el grapadura wrote:
Xcellent wrote:

el grapadura wrote:
Paston way too high on the list, Lochy too low. Siggy's been good, but not not that good.
Lochy has been crap this year. Deserves his low rating. Isn't half the player that he was last year


He was poor in the first few games, but has played much better in the last three. Undoubtedly his improved form is one of the reason why we've picked up 4 points from the last 2 games.
Granted he has inproved. but i dont think it has been that dramatic to say he is playing anywhere near what he was last year. His play is so one dimensional and telegraphed this year compared to last year.


I don't believe I ever said that he was playing on the level he was at last year?
Just that his form has improved noticeably, and that many of the guys ahead of him on that list don't really deserve to be so.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Any one that has played less than 3 games shouldn't count, therefore Smeltz is on top. Include the other guys in a game or two.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
actually according to your 3 game rule, Siggy with 7.5 (4 games) would still remain on top. Smeltz would be second on 7.

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
You have the maths wrong on Hearfield 22/4 is 5.5 It would be 4.4 if it was 5 games. Maybe you just made a typo, ill go crawl back in my hole now

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
If you draw a line under the 11th man it gives you statistically the best starting eleven. Which is interestingly pretty lite on defenders, if you assumed Moss is goal, Paston could join Smeltz up front as the tall target man. But as Covs also makes the cut playing three strikers would just be ludicrous...so what would you do with Covs?...right back?
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
... What a ridiculous comment!

.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Wolfben wrote:
Plodder's a bit high!

And Dodd may be a tad unjustified as I remember giving him a 0 I think, and a couple of 1's.


I've been impressed with Plodders hunger when he has come on, much better than last years effort by him. 

Also agree with El Grap on the Lochhead deal, think he's on the rise again now he's been able to put the whole Middlesborough trial situation behind him. 

Still not up to last years form but improving every week so I'm confident he'll get there......peaking in the last few rounds as we storm into the top four!!!


Coxey2008-10-14 17:57:49
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Didn't HN say that we have some sort of thing that tallys up MotM votes to give us some sort of idea as to who has won the most votes throughout the season? If this is true who's leading in terms of MotM picks won??
You know we belong together...

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
We were meant to have a flash new engine, but it got 'Pancaked'


Hard News2008-10-14 19:04:56

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Plodders been all class this year. Great goal against New Caledonia and his touch led to Tim Brown's goal against Sydney.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Turfmoore wrote:
OOE, Are they just based on yours and/or Wolfben's ratings?  If so, wont they be a tad coloured by personal player preferences?
 


Certainly one of the more amusing attempts at statistical 'analysis' I've seen.

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Bevan wrote:
Maybe needs to be some kind of weighted average?

Any statisticians around?
 
that phrase reminds me of  El**ch
 
-------------
 
from memory, a weighted average woud be used to account for disproportionate sampling
 
as our sample is 2 raters, (presumably, each wih the same number of match ratings) i don't think we need to trouble ourselves with anything except weighting for the next match
 
 
edit - hang on Bevan, i think i might get what you're after - using all the other ratings not just wolfben's and OOE's and weighting up the ratings of those that have only done 1 or 2 matches - if so he problem could be that he occasional rates only do so after a 'sh*t' performance and this would (unfairly) lower the average of those who played in those matches - if a weighting was introduced   .... or not, blah, blah, rabbit, rabbit, rant , burble
 
good on you OOE for doing your bit for keeping our blood pressure up during the international break
 
 
tigers2008-10-14 22:05:09
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Arsenal wrote:
Turfmoore wrote:
OOE, Are they just based on yours and/or Wolfben's ratings?  If so, wont they be a tad coloured by personal player preferences?
 


Certainly one of the more amusing attempts at statistical 'analysis' I've seen.
Yeh you guys are right, I aleready stated that they are only based on those ratings, otherwise I would need about 10 hours to work it out instead of one. I thought personal preferences might have surfaced too, but although i'm a loyal Johnno fan, he came out lower than I would have liked (bloody Wolfben giving him a 1 didn't help). I always try to be objective, well at least as objective as a ref tries to be (!).
Yes I agree totally with the comments that Locky  and several other players are on the up, making up for some poor form early in the season. Long may it continue.
If anyone can be bothered averagiing out everyone's ratings, good on them!
One round down, and who will prove they're the player of the season?

Oi Oi Edgecumbe... lets have a clean sheet

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
havent read the first page of this thread, but on the topic, it has to be smeltz because of his contribution in goals so far, his reputation amongst many as the best striker in the league, and nobody else having stepped up to the mark to the same extent thus far.
Permalink Permalink