Reading FC WhoScored Ratings

[Snowball]

Amazed to see Reading rated FIFTH in the table,
(joint 4-5-6) not on current form but overall.

6.85 Leeds
6.83 Brentford
6.79 Forest
6.78 Wednesday
6.78 Reading <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
6.78 WBA
--------------------
6.76 Fulham
6.75 Bristol
6.75 Hull
6.73 Millwall
6.72 Swansea
6.70 Middlesborough

I have no idea what their algorithm is but I fancy it's weighted
towards current form. Though, saying that, even when we were
not doing brilliantly we were 5th, slowly declining 6-7-8 etc.

[Snowball]

Looked at player ratings:

See note on Joao

Swift is top-dog ATM, Ejaria not far behind. For Reading alone
Joao is 6.99 but I added his goal for Wednesday and nudged him
up a little to reflect that. Surprised he is getting a goal every
194 minutes, and if only goals/assists were what mattered, he
would come out as more productive than Swift!

The ho-hum signing Morrison is scoring better than Moore
and Miazga.

Blackett, Gunter and Adam are FLYING up the rankings!

I don't get why Puscas is as low as he is. A strike rate of a goal every
222 minutes is hardly shabby, and he is still our top scorer.

McCleary's minutes aren't enough, but the ones he's played have been
very productive. Maybe he could play RW instead of Meite?

Loader comes almost bottom of the almost 600 players

I think Boye is better thatn the 23rd/24th percentile


001 99.99% 7.52 5 7 1,644 0,329 0,137 Swift
013 97.82% 7.31 3 3 1,830 0,610 0,305 Ejaria
034 94.30% 7.10 6 3 1,161 0,194 0,129 Joao

064 89.26% 6.99 1 3 1,596 1,596 0,399 Yiadom
086 85.57% 6.94 0 3 0,536 9,999 0,179 Blackett
095 84.06% 6.92 2 0 1,993 0,997 0,997 Morrison

136 77.18% 6.83 0 0 0,630 9,999 9,999 Gunter
144 75.84% 6.83 0 0 0,292 9,999 9,999 McIntyre
148 75.17% 6.82 2 1 0,509 0,255 0,170 Adam
157 73.66% 6.80 1 0 1,250 1,250 1,250 Miazga
159 73.32% 6.80 0 0 2,218 9,999 9,999 Moore

197 66.95% 6.74 0 0 1,334 9,999 9,999 Richards
203 65.94% 6.73 0 0 2,070 9,999 9,999 Cabral
209 64.93% 6.72 4 0 1,252 0,313 0,313 Meite

268 55.03% 6.64 0 1 1,220 9,999 1,220 Pele
289 51.51% 6.62 2 0 0,507 0,254 0,254 Baldock

336 43.62% 6.55 6 0 1,331 0,222 0,222 Puscas

373 37.42% 6.49 0 0 1,438 9,999 9,999 Rhino

422 29.19% 6.41 1 1 0,278 0,278 0,139 McCleary
440 26.17% 6.38 1 0 0,441 0,441 0,441 Obita
454 23.83% 6.36 0 0 0,568 9,999 9,999 Boye
469 21.31% 6.33 0 1 0,181 9,999 0,181 Barrett
514 13.76% 6.22 0 0 0,180 9,999 9,999 Virginia
533 10.57% 6.16 0 1 0,042 9,999 0,042 Olise
541 09.23% 6.12 0 0 0,090 9,999 9,999 Barrow
579 02.85% 5.95 0 0 0,107 9,999 9,999 Loader
594 00.34% 5.87 0 0 0,005 9,999 9,999 Novakovich

[Snowball]

Goals and Assists

6 3 1,161 0,194 0,129 Joao
6 0 1,331 0,222 0,222 Puscas
5 7 1,644 0,329 0,137 Swift
4 0 1,252 0,313 0,313 Meite
3 3 1,830 0,610 0,305 Ejaria

2 0 1,993 0,997 0,997 Morrison
2 1 0,509 0,255 0,170 Adam
2 0 0,507 0,254 0,254 Baldock

1 3 1,596 1,596 0,399 Yiadom
1 0 1,250 1,250 1,250 Miazga
1 1 0,278 0,278 0,139 McCleary
1 0 0,441 0,441 0,441 Obita

0 3 0,536 9,999 0,179 Blackett

0 1 1,220 9,999 1,220 Pele
0 1 0,181 9,999 0,181 Barrett
0 1 0,042 9,999 0,042 Olise

[Hound]

I love whoscored, but I do think you need to be a little careful with how much you take from it. I'm not quite sure on some of their points formulas, but the one I noticed recently was Rino getting a 6.0 when he didn't even touch the ball in 20 mins on the pitch.

Unless they score/assist, subs seem to always rate between about 6 and 6.3

I do think it gives to much additional rating to scoring as well. Someone can play abysmally, score a lucky goal and end up with a 7.5 (Meite vs Brum for example - though the goal wasn't lucky on that occasion )

We've seemed to have ranked quite highly in games when I thought we looked woeful as well (again Birmingham - team ranked .2 less despite being totally outplayed at times) - maybe because we were completing a high passing percentage, despite not causing any trouble to the oppo whatsoever.

Still nice to see Swift and Ejaria right up there in the rankings. Considering Swift managed a 4 in one game when he was sent off as well...

[Snowball]

Agree there. Some of their scores surprise me.

Having said that, most of us think Rhino is out of sorts this year
and that shows in his stats; a few have said Blackett is coming
good and that shows in his stats. Ditto for Adam and Gunter.

[Hound]

Don't know if you've seen it, but I like the Match Report section - shows all the player positions etc.

Interesting to see Swift is generally our second furthest forward and also that basically him and Adam cover exactly the same area

[3points]

it's scary that there are about 85 players worse than Joao Virginia!

[Snowball]

it's scary that there are about 85 players worse than Joao Virginia!

He must have made a save

[NewCorkSeth]

I love whoscored, but I do think you need to be a little careful with how much you take from it. I'm not quite sure on some of their points formulas, but the one I noticed recently was Rino getting a 6.0 when he didn't even touch the ball in 20 mins on the pitch.

Unless they score/assist, subs seem to always rate between about 6 and 6.3

I do think it gives to much additional rating to scoring as well. Someone can play abysmally, score a lucky goal and end up with a 7.5 (Meite vs Brum for example - though the goal wasn't lucky on that occasion )

We've seemed to have ranked quite highly in games when I thought we looked woeful as well (again Birmingham - team ranked .2 less despite being totally outplayed at times) - maybe because we were completing a high passing percentage, despite not causing any trouble to the oppo whatsoever.

Still nice to see Swift and Ejaria right up there in the rankings. Considering Swift managed a 4 in one game when he was sent off as well...

Subs have been known to score higher based on factors other than goals or assists. Not that it's a good metric but hitting the bar, clearing a goal on the line, high aerial duels won. It is tough to impress under their ratings as a sub but it is equally difficult for a player like Rinomhota to score well. He doesnt play as defensively as Pele and doesnt play as attacking as Swift so he will rarely show up well statistically despite often playing a vital role.

[URZZZZ]

it's scary that there are about 85 players worse than Joao Virginia!

He must have made a save

To be fair, assuming it only takes league games into account, Virginia only really made one mistake. A couple he could have done better with, but not pure mistakes like the Hull one

Therefore, not surprising there are plenty rated worse than him

[Snowflake Royal]

Looked at player ratings:

See note on Joao

Swift is top-dog ATM, Ejaria not far behind. For Reading alone
Joao is 6.99 but I added his goal for Wednesday and nudged him
up a little to reflect that. Surprised he is getting a goal every
194 minutes, and if only goals/assists were what mattered, he
would come out as more productive than Swift!

The ho-hum signing Morrison is scoring better than Moore
and Miazga.

Blackett, Gunter and Adam are FLYING up the rankings!

I don't get why Puscas is as low as he is. A strike rate of a goal every
222 minutes is hardly shabby, and he is still our top scorer.

McCleary's minutes aren't enough, but the ones he's played have been
very productive. Maybe he could play RW instead of Meite?

Loader comes almost bottom of the almost 600 players

I think Boye is better thatn the 23rd/24th percentile


001 99.99% 7.52 5 7 1,644 0,329 0,137 Swift
013 97.82% 7.31 3 3 1,830 0,610 0,305 Ejaria
034 94.30% 7.10 6 3 1,161 0,194 0,129 Joao

064 89.26% 6.99 1 3 1,596 1,596 0,399 Yiadom
086 85.57% 6.94 0 3 0,536 9,999 0,179 Blackett
095 84.06% 6.92 2 0 1,993 0,997 0,997 Morrison

136 77.18% 6.83 0 0 0,630 9,999 9,999 Gunter
144 75.84% 6.83 0 0 0,292 9,999 9,999 McIntyre
148 75.17% 6.82 2 1 0,509 0,255 0,170 Adam
157 73.66% 6.80 1 0 1,250 1,250 1,250 Miazga
159 73.32% 6.80 0 0 2,218 9,999 9,999 Moore

197 66.95% 6.74 0 0 1,334 9,999 9,999 Richards
203 65.94% 6.73 0 0 2,070 9,999 9,999 Cabral
209 64.93% 6.72 4 0 1,252 0,313 0,313 Meite

268 55.03% 6.64 0 1 1,220 9,999 1,220 Pele
289 51.51% 6.62 2 0 0,507 0,254 0,254 Baldock

336 43.62% 6.55 6 0 1,331 0,222 0,222 Puscas

373 37.42% 6.49 0 0 1,438 9,999 9,999 Rhino

422 29.19% 6.41 1 1 0,278 0,278 0,139 McCleary
440 26.17% 6.38 1 0 0,441 0,441 0,441 Obita
454 23.83% 6.36 0 0 0,568 9,999 9,999 Boye
469 21.31% 6.33 0 1 0,181 9,999 0,181 Barrett
514 13.76% 6.22 0 0 0,180 9,999 9,999 Virginia
533 10.57% 6.16 0 1 0,042 9,999 0,042 Olise
541 09.23% 6.12 0 0 0,090 9,999 9,999 Barrow
579 02.85% 5.95 0 0 0,107 9,999 9,999 Loader
594 00.34% 5.87 0 0 0,005 9,999 9,999 Novakovich

Puscas has very poor ball retention stats and has drawn a blank and been ineffective in a lot of games, which I'd guess explains his lower ranking.

[Hound]

I love whoscored, but I do think you need to be a little careful with how much you take from it. I'm not quite sure on some of their points formulas, but the one I noticed recently was Rino getting a 6.0 when he didn't even touch the ball in 20 mins on the pitch.

Unless they score/assist, subs seem to always rate between about 6 and 6.3

I do think it gives to much additional rating to scoring as well. Someone can play abysmally, score a lucky goal and end up with a 7.5 (Meite vs Brum for example - though the goal wasn't lucky on that occasion )

We've seemed to have ranked quite highly in games when I thought we looked woeful as well (again Birmingham - team ranked .2 less despite being totally outplayed at times) - maybe because we were completing a high passing percentage, despite not causing any trouble to the oppo whatsoever.

Still nice to see Swift and Ejaria right up there in the rankings. Considering Swift managed a 4 in one game when he was sent off as well...

Subs have been known to score higher based on factors other than goals or assists. Not that it's a good metric but hitting the bar, clearing a goal on the line, high aerial duels won. It is tough to impress under their ratings as a sub but it is equally difficult for a player like Rinomhota to score well. He doesnt play as defensively as Pele and doesnt play as attacking as Swift so he will rarely show up well statistically despite often playing a vital role.

Rino rated well last year if I remember rightly

[NewCorkSeth]

I love whoscored, but I do think you need to be a little careful with how much you take from it. I'm not quite sure on some of their points formulas, but the one I noticed recently was Rino getting a 6.0 when he didn't even touch the ball in 20 mins on the pitch.

Unless they score/assist, subs seem to always rate between about 6 and 6.3

I do think it gives to much additional rating to scoring as well. Someone can play abysmally, score a lucky goal and end up with a 7.5 (Meite vs Brum for example - though the goal wasn't lucky on that occasion )

We've seemed to have ranked quite highly in games when I thought we looked woeful as well (again Birmingham - team ranked .2 less despite being totally outplayed at times) - maybe because we were completing a high passing percentage, despite not causing any trouble to the oppo whatsoever.

Still nice to see Swift and Ejaria right up there in the rankings. Considering Swift managed a 4 in one game when he was sent off as well...

Subs have been known to score higher based on factors other than goals or assists. Not that it's a good metric but hitting the bar, clearing a goal on the line, high aerial duels won. It is tough to impress under their ratings as a sub but it is equally difficult for a player like Rinomhota to score well. He doesnt play as defensively as Pele and doesnt play as attacking as Swift so he will rarely show up well statistically despite often playing a vital role.

Rino rated well last year if I remember rightly

Soz, meant more this season. He played very different role last season. Ended with a 6.87.

[muirinho]

whoscored rates "successful" interactions rather than "good" interactions, or "non" interactions, so tends to favour particular styles of play - Ratings need to be taken with a large handful of salt.

E.g., a player with good alertness and positioning who shepherds an attacker to the corner flag and that attacker loses the ball over the endline - the defender will get nothing from whoscored for that, because they didn't touch the ball.

whereas a player with poor positioning who dives in with a last ditch tackle that he's lucky to get away with - that will be a successful tackle, and they'll get a score.

Similarly the kind of midfielder who plays short safe passes that go nowhere will get a better rating than the kind who is always putting balls ahead of the attackers for them to run on to - they'll get downgraded because a lot don't come off - but I know which kind of midfielder I'd prefer.

Pretty sure that subs get set at 6.0 when they join the fray - if they do absolutely nothing except wander around the pitch sight-seeing they're still a 6!

It has its uses for comparing specific things - but I wouldn't put much faith in its rating system.

[Snowflake Royal]

whoscored rates "successful" interactions rather than "good" interactions, or "non" interactions, so tends to favour particular styles of play - Ratings need to be taken with a large handful of salt.

E.g., a player with good alertness and positioning who shepherds an attacker to the corner flag and that attacker loses the ball over the endline - the defender will get nothing from whoscored for that, because they didn't touch the ball.

whereas a player with poor positioning who dives in with a last ditch tackle that he's lucky to get away with - that will be a successful tackle, and they'll get a score.

Similarly the kind of midfielder who plays short safe passes that go nowhere will get a better rating than the kind who is always putting balls ahead of the attackers for them to run on to - they'll get downgraded because a lot don't come off - but I know which kind of midfielder I'd prefer.

Pretty sure that subs get set at 6.0 when they join the fray - if they do absolutely nothing except wander around the pitch sight-seeing they're still a 6!

It has its uses for comparing specific things - but I wouldn't put much faith in its rating system.

Yeah that's fair. The granular stuff that's fairly easily measurable as long as you understand the parameters is fine, but using it as combined quality rating doesn't really work as well.

[Nameless]

Rafael seems to be ridiculously lowly ranked. Presumably he’s not doing well on assists, goals scored, tackles or passes completed ?
How meaningful is a ranking of things that are utterly different ?
Cricket has separate rankings for batsmen and bowlers, how can you rank a goal scoring centre forward gains. Goal keeper or a defensive midfielder ?

[NewCorkSeth]

Rafael seems to be ridiculously lowly ranked. Presumably he’s not doing well on assists, goals scored, tackles or passes completed ?
How meaningful is a ranking of things that are utterly different ?
Cricket has separate rankings for batsmen and bowlers, how can you rank a goal scoring centre forward gains. Goal keeper or a defensive midfielder ?

Goalkeepers are scored differently... he is low because he wasnt saving shots, had a poor pass completion rate and had made errors.

[Snowball]

Rafael seems to be ridiculously lowly ranked. Presumably he’s not doing well on assists, goals scored, tackles or passes completed ?
How meaningful is a ranking of things that are utterly different ?
Cricket has separate rankings for batsmen and bowlers, how can you rank a goal scoring centre forward gains. Goal keeper or a defensive midfielder ?

Goalkeepers are scored differently... he is low because he wasnt saving shots, had a poor pass completion rate and had made errors.

He was quite high after 6 games, then drifted downward. Now on his way back