Jump to content

Serie A Ratings 2010/2011


Lensois
 Share

Recommended Posts

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

The more I look into these Italian changes the worse I realise it is.

I actually think SM did a good job of the recent changes in France, Germany and England. On the whole I felt they were quite balanced and fair.

I don't think a single person has posted to say they think these Italian ratings are alright and I doubt anyone will.

I don't know if it's a different researcher but they are way off. The Naopli changes are especially poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riferimento: Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

Have they definitely finished? I was expecting De Rossi to drop so I accepted a £30.85m offer..

i did keep telling that he wont drop as im italian, i follow the Serie A and De rossi plays in my favourite team, which i follow. But no one wanted to listen to me :D

thats your reward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

The more I look into these Italian changes the worse I realise it is.

I actually think SM did a good job of the recent changes in France' date=' Germany and England. On the whole I felt they were quite balanced and fair.

I don't think a single person has posted to say they think these Italian ratings are alright and I doubt anyone will.

I don't know if it's a different researcher but they are way off. The Naopli changes are especially poor.[/quote']

The drops in Italy had to be severe as the league is now not as highly rated as, say, the Bundesliga. Still, not rising players who plainly deserve it is ridiculous IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

if bosingwa kept his 92 after being injured for an entire year, there is absolutely no merit to buffon dropping to 94. he was by far the best goalie in the world the last few years before injured, light years ahead of anyone else i had watched. it seems as if sm is needing 6 quality months of soccer from any player before having them rise. so why did sneijder not rise????? if chamakh is 91 why is cavani not???? these differences just make no sense and its really ruining the site for me that they will not tell us why players were changed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

I'm suprised that Muslera only rose to 88, while Sirigu rises to a Palermo team who are letting in goals aplenty. And with that, should Storari not receive a rise for the job he has been doing while Buffon is out. If you drop one for not playing, then you should be fair and give the other guy a rise for his credible performances. And Brocchi got a nice rise to 88 as well. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riferimento: Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

I'm suprised that Muslera only rose to 88' date=' while Sirigu rises to a Palermo team who are letting in goals aplenty. And with that, should Storari not receive a rise for the job he has been doing while Buffon is out. If you drop one for not playing, then you should be fair and give the other guy a rise for his credible performances. And Brocchi got a nice rise to 88 as well. :D[/quote']

i Agree with most of your post, besides the Muslera part.

Surely Muslera played like an 89 goalie lately, but remember that last season Lazio almost got relegated into Serie B, they save themselfs oly at the 2nd last game of the season. Lazio is out of every european competition this year, so its quite fair giving him the 88 that imo he deserves, and in a few months (because teh changes will happen in a few months, not like years) he will rise to 89, if ofc Lazio will keep up with their current performances.

SM was right giving him the 88 as much as SM would have been right on giving him 89.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riferimento: Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

The drops in Italy had to be severe as the league is now not as highly rated as' date=' say, the Bundesliga. Still, not rising players who plainly deserve it is ridiculous IMO.[/quote']

yea, i just checked, and Genoa has a higher team average rating than Napoli, thats ridicolus imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

The drops in Italy had to be severe as the league is now not as highly rated as' date=' say, the Bundesliga. Still, not rising players who plainly deserve it is ridiculous IMO.[/quote']

I guess if you take UEFA's coefficient into account you could make some sense of this (only some). Personally I believe UEFA's coefficient is flawed but that's a different topic.

What I'm trying to understand are the, as you've mentioned above, non-risers & small risers. Anyone can see that some sort of overhauling has occurred. Whether it's the World Cup, UEFA's coefficient, the change from 2 to 3 reviews a year or a combination of all of these I'm not sure.

If it was because Seria A is now the 4th league according to UEFA, then we should have seen the likes of Pirlo, Nesta, Del Piero, De Rossi, Maicon, Ibrahimovic or Eto'o drop. This so that the average of Seria A teams wouldn't be much higher then the Bundesliga teams. But that didn't happen. The same goes for the World Cup influence. You've had some obvious examples like Muller, Coentrao or Suarez but you can also see the inconsistencies with Muslera, Sneijder, Fucile, etc.

But that's not what baffles me the most. What I really cannot understand is why certain players in Serie A, Premier League and Bundesliga kept their high ratings undeservedly while players in form have been held back in one way or another. Bonucci, Hernanes and Cavani being the main.

Bonucci is an undisputed starter for Juventus & Italy. I find it hard to believe that SM see an 89 as a fit rating for such player. Specially when you see players like Juan, Albiol, Mexes, Naldo rated 2, 3 or 4 points above. Players like Chygrynskiy, Garay, Gamberini, Dunne, Demichelis, Heinze are considered better? If you think about it Bonucci shares his rating with Bocchetti, C. Bovo, Ferrari, Barzagli, Dainelli, Legrottaglie, Evans, Hubschman, Cristian Zapata, Katsouranis, Aston Villa's Cuellar, BOUMSONG, Wes Brown, and Lescott. I mean, would any of the above walk into Juventus or Italy's defense? Absolutely not.

As for Hernanes and Cavani it is clear to me that whoever did their ratings hasn't been paying close attention. If Krasic got his 91 then so should have Hernanes and Cavani. Hernanes is considered by many experts in Italy as the signing of the year in Serie A, above Krasic and Aquilani (how on earth does he have the same rating now as he did in Liverpool?).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the inconsistency in the ratings for Serie A is massive. Not the droppers (I feel as though there should have been even more) but the risers. As someone posted earlier I think it's a must for SM to make the ratings changes more transparent. That way, even if we don't agree with some of them, we will know the reasons behind each change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

101 your post is just a more in depth post of mine, we all agree with your points. whoever has done the most recent ratings of england and italy have really screwed it up. it is crazy how many inconsistencies you can find among the players. especially how funny it is that a carlos cuellar is at the same rating as a bonucci. cuellar has played in 2 games all season and only dropped 1. di natale scores for fun and yet he drops one. cavani has scored what 12/13 goals so far this season and won't rise. sneijder a top 5 player in the world this past year stays the same (wonder what he could have possibly done to get a 96)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

I guess if you take UEFA's coefficient into account you could make some sense of this (only some). Personally I believe UEFA's coefficient is flawed but that's a different topic.

SM use the UEFA coefficients to determine how highly different leagues should be rated. I don't think the system's perfect at all as it only rates the top 6/7 teams per country but it's all SM have to go by.

What I'm trying to understand are the' date=' as you've mentioned above, non-risers & small risers. Anyone can see that some sort of overhauling has occurred. Whether it's the World Cup, UEFA's coefficient, the change from 2 to 3 reviews a year or a combination of all of these I'm not sure.[/quote']

Recently Italy has dropped below Germany in the rankings. SM had the 2 countries at completely different levels. Germany were incredibly low rated and Italy had a lot of top rated players. Now that the 2 have switched ranking positions, SM have to be very critical to Italy and were much more generous to Germany. It's the same reason lots of Liverpool players dropped and few rose but on a bigger scale. I would have much preferred if they'd been harsher with some ratings though (drop Maicon, Milito, Pirlo, Totti further etc.) and given deserved rises to guys like Cavani and Hernanes. This could probably have been predicted though after seeing SM not raise guys who deserved it at Liverpool (N'Gog, Lucas) and not dropping those who fell by enough (Carragher, Cole etc.).

If it was because Seria A is now the 4th league according to UEFA' date=' then we should have seen the likes of Pirlo, Nesta, Del Piero, De Rossi, Maicon, Ibrahimovic or Eto'o drop. This so that the average of Seria A teams wouldn't be much higher then the Bundesliga teams. But that didn't happen. The same goes for the World Cup influence. You've had some obvious examples like Muller, Coentrao or Suarez but you can also see the inconsistencies with Muslera, Sneijder, Fucile, etc.[/quote']

Whilst SM will be keen to have ratings in line with the rankings, players will have to see a drop in form to drop. Guys like Eto'o, Nesta and Ibra don't deserve to drop and it appears SM instead chose not to rise other players. I doubt we'll see anyone rise above 94 in Italy until it recovers its ranking position. That means if Ibra drops, he drops for good. I personally think SM have given too much credibility to the World Cup (7 games) but it seems that they've just been lenient to those who performed well.

But that's not what baffles me the most. What I really cannot understand is why certain players in Serie A' date=' Premier League and Bundesliga kept their high ratings undeservedly while players in form have been held back in one way or another. Bonucci, Hernanes and Cavani being the main.[/quote']

Answered above but players still have to deserve the drop. I think some did such as Maicon and Pirlo but that's the only reason I'm annoyed at these ratings, not at how severe they've been.

Bonucci is an undisputed starter for Juventus & Italy. I find it hard to believe that SM see an 89 as a fit rating for such player. Specially when you see players like Juan' date=' Albiol, Mexes, Naldo rated 2, 3 or 4 points above. Players like Chygrynskiy, Garay, Gamberini, Dunne, Demichelis, Heinze are considered better? If you think about it Bonucci shares his rating with Bocchetti, C. Bovo, Ferrari, Barzagli, Dainelli, Legrottaglie, Evans, Hubschman, Cristian Zapata, Katsouranis, Aston Villa's Cuellar, BOUMSONG, Wes Brown, and Lescott. I mean, would any of the above walk into Juventus or Italy's defense? Absolutely not.[/quote']

Looking at it a different way: Bonucci is a starter for the side that's 3rd in Serie A. The team in 3rd place in the Bundesliga (now a higher rated league) is Bayer Leverkusen. Their main defenders have ratings of 3x88, 89 and 90. Compare to Juventus who have 4x88, 89, 90 and an 89 with just 119 minutes this season. On that basis you could have argued Bonucci should stay and Chiellini should have dropped. SM tend to forget 'names' whilst reviewing. It's the fairest way and means under-performing big sides and players (Inter, Liverpool, Rooney) get the drops they deserve.

As for Hernanes and Cavani it is clear to me that whoever did their ratings hasn't been paying close attention. If Krasic got his 91 then so should have Hernanes and Cavani. Hernanes is considered by many experts in Italy as the signing of the year in Serie A' date=' above Krasic and Aquilani (how on earth does he have the same rating now as he did in Liverpool?).[/quote']

I agree on this. I wish SM had been harsher on higher rated players and given these guys the ratings they've earned this season.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the inconsistency in the ratings for Serie A is massive. Not the droppers (I feel as though there should have been even more) but the risers. As someone posted earlier I think it's a must for SM to make the ratings changes more transparent. That way' date=' even if we don't agree with some of them, we will know the reasons behind each change.[/quote']

I agree to a point. I think they have been consistent with their ratings though perhaps they've rated them in the wrong way.

101 your post is just a more in depth post of mine' date=' we all agree with your points. whoever has done the most recent ratings of england and italy have really screwed it up. it is crazy how many inconsistencies you can find among the players. especially how funny it is that a carlos cuellar is at the same rating as a bonucci. cuellar has played in 2 games all season and only dropped 1. di natale scores for fun and yet he drops one. cavani has scored what 12/13 goals so far this season and won't rise. sneijder a top 5 player in the world this past year stays the same (wonder what he could have possibly done to get a 96)[/quote']

If you word your posts that eloquently people will take the time to respond. Moaning means people ignore you as it instigates the image that your opinion can't be changed.

I reckon that you created that account Stuart' date=' after all he/she has only made one post ;)[/quote']

I'm not that smart :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

Agreed stuart, I need to stop complaining and start debating! I'm sure the raters have watched much much more football than i have and have a pretty clear idea of what they are doing. The only thing that irks me is that they use a BCS type system to determine who should rise and drop. For me, because the Italian lower teams are so weak does not discredit the fact that the top teams in Italy are very good. The same could be said about the Spanish league, a lot of the bottom half of the table teams are god awful, and from what I am reading these uefa coefficients play a large part in determining who rises and drops. The german league has produced 4 teams in the last 3 seasons of the champions league that have made it to the knockout round, while italy has produced 9 in the knockout round. Given that germany gets 3 teams each of those years and italy gets 4, 9/16 is a much better ratio than 4 out of 12. This current season, italian teams had all 3 go through to the next round while germany had 2 out of 3, and the league champions from last year got last place! What I'm trying to get at is that the champions league should be the forum as the romans liked to call it for being able to find out which leagues are stronger than others. And that if your current domestic league has very poor teams in the bottom half, that it should not discredit the quality of your own side. We found out 2 years ago that the english league was clearly the best when they had 3 out of the semi finalists and took out 3 italian sides on the way. These mathematical coefficient systems just never play out correctly.

Good example: the non-included result of appalachain state vs western illinois bumped LSU over Boise State in the BCS. A game of two awful college football teams had that much of a bearing on if lsu or boise state was higher in the BCS. Lucky for the ncaa that it had no bearing on which bowls these 2 schools were selected to but a great testament to how flawed the mathematical systems are in trying to decide whose better than who. The old "eye test" is a much better way to come about how good a team is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

Agreed stuart' date=' I need to stop complaining and start debating! I'm sure the raters have watched much much more football than i have and have a pretty clear idea of what they are doing. The only thing that irks me is that they use a BCS type system to determine who should rise and drop. For me, because the Italian lower teams are so weak does not discredit the fact that the top teams in Italy are very good. The same could be said about the Spanish league, a lot of the bottom half of the table teams are god awful, and from what I am reading these uefa coefficients play a large part in determining who rises and drops. The german league has produced 4 teams in the last 3 seasons of the champions league that have made it to the knockout round, while italy has produced 9 in the knockout round. Given that germany gets 3 teams each of those years and italy gets 4, 9/16 is a much better ratio than 4 out of 12. This current season, italian teams had all 3 go through to the next round while germany had 2 out of 3, and the league champions from last year got last place! What I'm trying to get at is that the champions league should be the forum as the romans liked to call it for being able to find out which leagues are stronger than others. And that if your current domestic league has very poor teams in the bottom half, that it should not discredit the quality of your own side. We found out 2 years ago that the english league was clearly the best when they had 3 out of the semi finalists and took out 3 italian sides on the way. These mathematical coefficient systems just never play out correctly.

Good example: the non-included result of appalachain state vs western illinois bumped LSU over Boise State in the BCS. A game of two awful college football teams had that much of a bearing on if lsu or boise state was higher in the BCS. Lucky for the ncaa that it had no bearing on which bowls these 2 schools were selected to but a great testament to how flawed the mathematical systems are in trying to decide whose better than who. The old "eye test" is a much better way to come about how good a team is.[/quote']

Some good points (though I'm not particularly aware of the reference you make :o) :) I think the best way for SM to analyse each league is by the UEFA coefficients but it is by no means a perfect practice. If you were to judge by eye then less fashionable teams like Stoke would lose out despite their pretty poor football being pretty effective. Some kind of structural reasoning has to be in place to give managers any hoping of judging who might rise/drop.

I say the UEFA rankings are not perfect because they judge a league solely on how well its clubs perform on the European stage. This only takes into account 6 or 7 teams in the top leagues and as few as a single side for the Lichtenstein league :P This can give some countries inflated ratings and don't give a fair reflection at all as to a countries' standing as the league might be very tight with all teams with a chance of winning the title (like Brazil/Argentina) or there may be a few elite teams like in Spain or England and Italy up to this season it seems. UEFA coefficients bear no reflection on how close a league is and therefore it isn't perfect. We won't have a perfect system unless all teams play competitive games against teams from another country on a regular basis. It'll be a while until you see a European header of Wigan v Osasuna. However, it is the only system in place which indicates how strong a particular league is and SM should utilise it. I'm not sure how they compare leagues from different continents mind...

Incidentally, you can find the UEFA coefficients here and see the process behind working them out here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

i figured you wouldnt get the college football reference cuz you arent from america! but it is a system similar to these coefficient rankings and has been in huge debate among americans for the last decade. it is very flawed as is almost every mathematical system used to determine who is best. you can only truly find out if they play each other.

I.E. bojan did score against inter last year, and they should have won that tie ;) a computer system would never be able to figure out who the better team was over those 2 matches, or that the year before iniesta scored a cracker to win the tie when chelsea was clearly as good or better, or the year before that terry slipped while taking a pk for them not to win it. Computers can't know these things, but humans can :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

i figured you wouldnt get the college football reference cuz you arent from america! but it is a system similar to these coefficient rankings and has been in huge debate among americans for the last decade. it is very flawed as is almost every mathematical system used to determine who is best. you can only truly find out if they play each other.

I.E. bojan did score against inter last year' date=' and they should have won that tie ;) a computer system would never be able to figure out who the better team was over those 2 matches, or that the year before iniesta scored a cracker to win the tie when chelsea was clearly as good or better, or the year before that terry slipped while taking a pk for them not to win it. Computers can't know these things, but humans can :D[/quote']

Ah, I see where you're coming from. Judging by eye on teams who have never and likely will never come up against each other is tricky though. Only way I can see accurate ratings is if we got a European super league, which in turn would make me go and find another sport :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

di natale scores for fun and yet he drops one. )

Superficial research I know, but here's a quote from Wiki -

"15 May 2010 saw the conclusion of Di Natale's best-ever season, scoring 29 goals in Serie A, including hat-tricks against Catania and Napoli. He also surpassed Oliver Bierhoff's club record for most league goals in a season, who had scored 28. A brace against Bari on 9 May 2010 saw Di Natale surpass the 100 goal mark in Serie A. On 14 November 2010, he scored a hat-trick during a match with Udinese against Lecce and on 28 November 2010, he scored a second consecutive home hat-trick during a match against Napoli."

It's not his fault he's getting older lol. I'm obviously a newcomer, but I thought he was a dead cert to keep a 93 - Kuyt kept his 92!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Serie A Ratings 2010/2011

I see your point Stuart. Comparing Juventus to B. Levenkusen. It would, however, imply you should/could compare Inter with Freiburg or Bayern to Palermo. And if we wanted to take it further we could look at Ligue 1, who are 7 points behind Serie A in UEFA's coefficient (roughly the same the Bundesliga has over Serie A) and see a 9th placed Bordeaux with two 89 CB's. Doesn't add up to me. We could also state that Bonucci is a starter for his National Team, while no player at B. Leverkusen can be accounted in Germany's starting line-up (correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Arne and not Manuel Friedrich traveled to South Africa, not sure). That should certainly account for something or at least that's what SM claim when they briefly explain their ratings.

I'm not trying to argue with you either, as I know I'm pitching a dead argument (plus the fact that I can agree with you in all accounts). You can't compare the teams above for various reason. I'm merely stating that comparing two teams from different leagues using stats is inaccurate.

Hernanes and Cavani should have raised, yes. But that doesn't bother me as much as seeing Bonucci as an 89. I could (anyone could) create a well constructed argument and proposal as to why the former are fine as they are. But, to be redundant, Bonucci's case has no logic whatsoever to me. And I'm not going for the 'Bale proposal' either (88 > 91, 92, 93, 94 and I even saw a post going for a 95), but that 90 seemed to be well earned by all accounts. Specially when you look at the precedent of players reaching 90 + ratings effortlessly.

It seems to me as though SM tries to include too many parameters when evaluating a player, even more so on a World Cup year, but this may have a misleading effect in some cases.

SM should let us know about their decision making process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...