Daily Record Player Ratings?

hardly a fight !! heated discussion is what i like to call it :icon_mrgreen:

 

Hmm there was a direct attack on me as the poster a few times in this thread. Some have backed off when they were found out mind..

 

Paddy McCourt - on for Samaras to do a bit of showboating, 5.


A really constructive comment.What a *...... Lets gloss over the fine pass to put Ki in space for his excellent strike. He may as well have added that Paddy drank half a bottle of Absinthe and smoked 10 Park Drive at half time if he wanted to be any more stereotypical.

 

In summary a great 3 points and a clean sheet that I'm sure every fan is delighted with.

 

He's not really there to be constructive though. In all honesty that is what he done when he came on. I don't take that as a negative. I love mccourts showboating.

 

Glad you agree

 

Why is there 5 pages of this?...

* the red tops.

/thread.

 

Credit where credits due

 

...he also found Ki with an inch perfect pass for the 4th.

Something tells me the hun hacks don't like the fact that this team is showing early signs of being quite special.

 

stop buying the daily ranker years ago an never will again anyway

 

I think fans would be surprised at the number of Celtic fans working for the record.

 

I've just read this thread and some posters need to learn how to debate the topic at hand.

Cut out all the nonsense, anymore will lead to infractions.

 

Absolutely. And that would be correct, since the player ratings are for the players themselves, not their opposition.

It's natural that players play better against weaker opposition - and since the marks are for how well they played, they should get higher marks when they play better.

Your way of doing it leads to the ludicrous situation that when a poor player is up against an excellent player, the poor player will score higher - because of the quality of his opposition! And this is exactly what happened on the record's ratings - McGregor of St Mirren scored higher than Scott Brown, who played twice as well. That's just silly.

 

regardless, thats human nature to score points that way. There is no way the defence yesterday for example should score any higher than they did as they had virtually nothing to do. If they were under pressure for large chunks of the game and did do well then they would merit higher marks.

The quality of opposition will always play a part in player ratings. Fans on here base opinions on players based on value...same thing.

 

Not really, you can only play what's in front of you.

I can see where you're coming from but if a player has a good game then he should get a high rating, regardless of the opposition.

 

Can't really think of an example as i don't take much notice of their ratings.

 

I hear what you're saying but players at celtic and rangers should be playing 'well" against these teams....its human nature for people rating players to take this into account and feel a higher rating would be merited if they played the same agaisnt quality opposition. If we played Rangers and won 4-0 then the players would no doubt get more....and the defence more if they came under more pressure.

 

Anyone know where i can view the game's stats?

 

Yes, that's perhaps why the St Mirren goalkeeper scored higher in the Daily Record than everyone in the Celtic team, despite letting in four goals.

He had such a lot to do - picking the ball oot the pokey.

It all makes sense now.