Post by trophyback on Jul 26, 2011 14:08:57 GMT
something that stood out from the recent Tom Cleverley increase debate on the ratings thread is how ratings are often decided on what a player HAS done, rather than what they CAN do.
i know it's easier to decide these things based on facts, but just because some player doesn't get a chance to play at a certain level doesn't mean he isn't that good, and could/would if given the chance.
Smalling highlights this - he didn't suddenly bounce from a 75ov (Maidstone rating?) to an 80ov by pulling on a United shirt, but he could obviously play at a higher level than he had been. it's like a lot of Championship players who never get above a certain rating because they don't play in the premiership: it doesn't mean they can't --and a bunch of them would be better than some occasional premiership capped players-- but they would rather play every week in the championship than every 4th week, say, in the premiership. it doesn't mean they couldn't, just that there are other players just as good who are being picked.
an example was Berbatov not starting for Manchester United when Hernandez was undroppable. Berbatov didn't suddenly get worse and deserve a decrease just because he wasn't playing.
similarly, if necom had been around at the time... when Ray Clemence was limited in his England caps because of Peter Shilton, did that mean Clemence wasn't of the same international quality simply because he didn't have as many caps? of course not.
like i said, having the factual figures in front of us "helps" decide something inherently difficult to decide, but doesn't ever tell the whole story, and i think these other factors should feature in any determination. and probably do in our personal opinions and favourites.
of course, the opinions can stretch things even further... for example, i'm not a fan of Lampard, and would much rather the likes of Cleverley play for the national side. does that mean i'm arguing that Cleverley should be on an OV par with Lampard? given the current method of deciding, obviously not. but does that stop me thinking that Cleverley is a better player? erm...
i know it's easier to decide these things based on facts, but just because some player doesn't get a chance to play at a certain level doesn't mean he isn't that good, and could/would if given the chance.
Smalling highlights this - he didn't suddenly bounce from a 75ov (Maidstone rating?) to an 80ov by pulling on a United shirt, but he could obviously play at a higher level than he had been. it's like a lot of Championship players who never get above a certain rating because they don't play in the premiership: it doesn't mean they can't --and a bunch of them would be better than some occasional premiership capped players-- but they would rather play every week in the championship than every 4th week, say, in the premiership. it doesn't mean they couldn't, just that there are other players just as good who are being picked.
an example was Berbatov not starting for Manchester United when Hernandez was undroppable. Berbatov didn't suddenly get worse and deserve a decrease just because he wasn't playing.
similarly, if necom had been around at the time... when Ray Clemence was limited in his England caps because of Peter Shilton, did that mean Clemence wasn't of the same international quality simply because he didn't have as many caps? of course not.
like i said, having the factual figures in front of us "helps" decide something inherently difficult to decide, but doesn't ever tell the whole story, and i think these other factors should feature in any determination. and probably do in our personal opinions and favourites.
of course, the opinions can stretch things even further... for example, i'm not a fan of Lampard, and would much rather the likes of Cleverley play for the national side. does that mean i'm arguing that Cleverley should be on an OV par with Lampard? given the current method of deciding, obviously not. but does that stop me thinking that Cleverley is a better player? erm...