Alright, let me tell you about this player ratings thing I did for the Roma vs. Cremonese match. It was a bit of a grind, but hey, gotta keep the skills sharp, right?
It all started with just wanting to see how the players actually performed beyond the final score. Numbers don’t lie, or at least they tell a more complete story than just “Roma won.” So, I figured, let’s dive into some ratings.
First things first, I watched the damn game. All 90-ish minutes, plus the extra time. This is crucial. You can’t just pull stats off some website and call it a day. You gotta see the game to understand the context behind the numbers.
While watching, I was scribbling down notes like a madman.
- Key passes
- Successful tackles
- Dribbles completed (or failed!)
- Shots on target
- Mistakes leading to chances
- General work rate and positioning
Basically, anything that caught my eye, good or bad, went into the notebook.
Next up, stat hunting. I hit up a couple of the usual sports stats sites. You know, the ones with all the tables and numbers. This helped fill in the gaps in my notes and gave me a more objective view of things. I was looking at stuff like:
- Pass completion percentage
- Duels won
- Interceptions
- Clearances
Now comes the tricky part: turning all that data into actual ratings. I decided to go with a 1-10 scale, because everyone understands that, right? Here’s how I approached it:
- 6 is average. This means the player did their job, nothing spectacular, nothing terrible.
- Above 6 means they performed well. The higher the number, the better they were. A 9 or 10 is reserved for truly outstanding performances.
- Below 6 means they underperformed. The lower the number, the worse they were. A 1 or 2 is pretty much a disaster.
It’s not just about the numbers, though. That’s where the eye test comes in. For example, a defender might have a high number of clearances, but if most of those clearances were panicked hoofs into the stands, they’re not getting a great rating. Context matters!
I spent a good few hours wrestling with these ratings. Second-guessing myself, tweaking things based on gut feelings, you name it. I had to re-watch some key moments just to be sure I was being fair.
Finally, I had my ratings. And I wrote some short descriptions for each player, explaining why they got the rating they did. That’s important too, because just throwing out a number without any explanation is useless.
So, there you have it. That’s how I did my player ratings for the Roma vs. Cremonese match. It’s a lot of work, but it’s also pretty satisfying to dig into the details and try to understand the game on a deeper level.
Was it perfect? Nah, probably not. Ratings are always subjective to some extent. But I tried my best to be fair and objective, and hopefully, it gave people a better understanding of how the players performed.
Important note: This whole thing is just my opinion, based on what I saw and the stats I looked at. Take it with a grain of salt! Football is a game of opinions, after all.
