Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Capello Index Ratings

  • 21-07-2010 11:17am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,254 ✭✭✭


    Has this been posted or has anyone viewed it online?

    Apologies if its been posted already.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭Doyler92


    I read somewhere that Capello had in fact nothing to do with these ratings. But it also said they were printed without his permission :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,589 ✭✭✭✭Necronomicon




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Doyler92 wrote: »
    I read somewhere that Capello had in fact nothing to do with these ratings. But it also said they were printed without his permission :confused:

    its his system, but he decided it best not to allow its use coz it might cause problems with the england squad

    of course had they won the world cup he'd surely have been delighted to let it go public


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,594 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    Its a bloody harsh system. Rates a players performance from 1 to 100. Forlan did the best, and even he was only a 65 average with some outstanding performances, and a 72 for his best game where he was unreal..what gets you that extra 28%?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    seems a pretty fair system tbh

    if you take 50 as being the average international performance (which should be a pretty hight standard) then 65-72 are pretty bloody good scores


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,594 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    Helix wrote: »
    seems a pretty fair system tbh

    if you take 50 as being the average international performance (which should be a pretty hight standard) then 65-72 are pretty bloody good scores

    But when you compare the likes of Forlan to some of the England players, you see terry who had an abysmal tournament has an average of 60 and Upson who was poor has a 60 average. So 5 points out of 100 seperate 2 players who had awful forgettable tournaments, and 1 who had a fantastic tournament...just seems all too bunched together.

    you say the average is down at 50, but the lowest player for England was 51.67, and that was Green who played one game and single handedly cost his team the win in that game. So how bad do you have to be to hit the 'average'?

    (incidentally the england players scores are here; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1295519/Fabio-left-red-faced-Capello-Index-England-boss-demands-removal-player-ratings.html )


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭massdebater


    The Capello Index is the most annoying thing since Sky sports tried to make a story out of the Rafa "guarantee"


Advertisement