Whoscored.com

[The Great Mass Debater]

A site known to many Im sure, but never really explored it before. Baffling amount of stats during a game and also player ratings interesting to peruse

http://www.whoscored.com/Teams/168

 

[Din]

Quite interesting that. Surprised me that Cuellar wins more headers on average each game than any other player, also surprising that he's our second highest rated after Redmond.

 

[ZLF]

Cuellar has only been involved in one defeat which helps, and he reads the game best of those used so far, covering up his lacks of pace on most occasions by good positioning or good defending.

The ratings can be deceptive, high bias to goal scoring (seems to add c0.5 per goal) and aerial strength but usually a good insight. Match reports and insights good and without canary tinted glasses

 

[Yellow Fever]

I watch the 'match centre' while listening to the commentary when there isn't a stream and find that it gives an objective analysis of both player and team performance. Much better than the Canary Player stats. The chalk-board feature is also useful.

 

[Dandy Mountfarto]

I like whoscored for having all the stats in one place but the overall rating system is a load of *bleep*

 

[Dandy Mountfarto]

Can't even say *bleep* on a football message board these days without the politically correct health and safety brigade stopping me, broken Britain

 

[Yellow Fever]

I take your point DM, as any rating system is going to have weaknesses. GK ratings are another weak area. Ruddy scored higher last year because he was making many more saves. In a game like Millwall his rating was low because they hardly threatened until they finally scored. If you are aware of these limitations, though, it is still a useful, if not definitive, guide for comparing players on the same objective basis. The most useful stat, IMO, is the Passing Success ratio, which is useful for comparing mid-fielders (though it can depend on how ambitious a player is in his passing).

 

[Dandy Mountfarto]

This issue is that afaik, they don't publish their methodology, so they may as well just be made up numbers. There's no objectivity because we have no idea how the rating is compiled, or how they decided that their method was a good one.