Average Player Ratings

[ClaretTony]

Ratings up to and including last match against Middlesbrough

7.30 - Michael Keane
7.24 - Ben Mee
7.20 - Tom Heaton
7.06 - Joey Barton
6.92 - Stephen Ward
6.88 - Steven Defour
6.73 - Ashley Barnes
6.72 - Matt Lowton
6.67 - Jeff Hendrick
6.62 - Johann Berg Gudmundsson
6.59 - Dean Marney
6.42 - Andre Gray
6.38 - George Boyd
6.20 - Sam Vokes
6.11 - Scott Arfield

[jlup1980]

Seems harsh on Vokes in my opinion.

[ClaretTony]

Seems harsh on Vokes in my opinion.

Every player has a rating above average - not sure I'd say that's low for Vokes.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Its low for Ward thats for sure. Consistently a 7 or above.

[ClaretTony]

Its low for Ward thats for sure. Consistently a 7 or above.

Lot of very low marks for Ward away from home in earlier part of the season

[bfc1984]

Shows how much people have there favourites who can do no wrong,people have there tongue so far up joeys bum that he always gets the 7,opposed to a Boyd who gets the 6.joeys been poor apart from odd game.

[claretdom]

It doesn't help when people do the ratings have agendas towards certain players.

[Sidney1st]

I'm surprised Tarks doesn't feature near the top.

[IanMcL]

I'm surprised Tarks doesn't feature near the top.

Ha!

[JohnMac]

The 'fan' normally always over mark players when measured against the 'originals', the newspaper pundits. We could average 8 for a player and the paper awards a 6 for example.

I try to remain impartial without bias but sometimes can't see how others arrived at the mark they give, high or low. I'm sure nearly everyone else is the same but there are a few who can't bear to praise certain players in our squad.

[NottsClaret]

Every player has a rating above average - not sure I'd say that's low for Vokes.

I appreciate the effort that goes into this, so I'm fighting the urge to point out the flaw in every player being above 'average'.

Interesting that we only have around one point covering the whole team's scores, shows what a team effort it is.

[ClaretTony]

I'm surprised Tarks doesn't feature near the top.

I don't think Ablueclaret does player ratings

[ClaretTony]

I appreciate the effort that goes into this, so I'm fighting the urge to point out the flaw in every player being above 'average'.

Interesting that we only have around one point covering the whole team's scores, shows what a team effort it is.

I'd have been disappointed if they weren't all above average to be honest. Most of these players were the ones who brought us up from the Championship and now having to compete against the best teams in the country.

[andyh]

More or less right.

If asked I would have said all those above 6.9 had been outstanding those above 6.6 had had good seasons and those below that mark had been ok.

No one has had a bad season.

Shows that the majority is fairly sensible.

[Inchy]

Regardless of the numbers, I'd say the list is a fair assessment of how our players have faired this season. No surprise to see Keane, Mee, and Heaton top of the list

I think Gray and Boyd are so far down the list because of lack of consistency

[claretspice]

I think Barton is a bit overvalued there, whilst Gray in particularly is ludicrously undervalued. Arfield and Boyd are also probably a bit undervalued, and I don't think Defour's performances, or those of Barnes overall, warrant them being quite so high up the list.

But it does seem to be a decent enough assessment of have much supporters as a whole appreciate each individual.

[andyh]

I think Barton is a bit overvalued there, whilst Gray in particularly is ludicrously undervalued. Arfield and Boyd are also probably a bit undervalued, and I don't think Defour's performances, or those of Barnes overall, warrant them being quite so high up the list.

But it does seem to be a decent enough assessment of have much supporters as a whole appreciate each individual.

Erm Spice it isn't valuation it is average marks.

Gray has not been good in a heck of a lot of matches, Barnes has.

Is Gray more valuable an asset? Or more likely to score on any given Saturday? Undoubtedly.

Has Barnes turned up and had an impact on more games... well that is what the averages tell you.

[Bin Ont Turf]

I'm surprised at Arfield's high score, considering he's one of only a couple of players (for a few posters) who start at zero every week

[taio]

Certainly interesting and a worthwhile exercise which must take CT quite a long time to coordinate. Of course people will have their own views on whether some of the average ratings are a fair reflection, but it's a bit of a moot point.

[JohnMcGreal]

Did Paul Robinson not make the list?

[Blackrod]

Shows this is a fair assessment. The overall numbers will iron out any silly scores. On current form I would expect Ward's score to increase along with Ben Mee and Lowton.

[aggi]

I appreciate the effort that goes into this, so I'm fighting the urge to point out the flaw in every player being above 'average'.

Interesting that we only have around one point covering the whole team's scores, shows what a team effort it is.

The players aren't being marked solely against the other players in the team, it's not a zero sum game. We've arguably had an above average season (currently 12th in the league) so you'd expect the players to be above average.

[FCBurnley]

Overall I think the averages are pretty fair. All averaged over 6 with our defenders rated highest followed by our midfield, and our forwards being the lower ranked. To me that is a good summary of our season so far.

[NottsClaret]

At the risk of derailing an interesting thread.. depends on what we mean by average I guess aggi. I'm not much of a mathematician so will concede the point if someone knows better.

Rather like an education minister demanding every pupil be above average, it sort of renders the idea of an 'average' score meaningless. Looking at the list, I'd reckon Hendrick and Lowton best represent an average score, being a similar number of points from the best and worst performing players, with a similar number of players above and below them.

Unless we're scoring on a basis of the merits of possibly thousands of performances from hundreds of players over previous decades. In which case CT's initial point is indeed correct. I'll agree everyone's done pretty well.

[CrosspoolClarets]

As a statistician of sorts, I would view this kind of long term exercise to lead us to the truth, unless one player has a consistent bias from the vast bulk of posters rating him (which I don't think is the case, just the occasional prejudice here and there).

Looking at the list, it does indeed look about right, both the level of the rating and the order. Players like Gray have been occasionally excellent but this table suits the good and consistent player, and those at the top fit that bill. I would personally shift one or two a bit, but that's my own personal preference into what I think makes a good performance, generally the table reflects the chatter I hear when I talk to other fans at matches.