Squawka

[cmg]

I note that the rehashed 'Betts to Chelsea' story in today's valuable news summary contains various Squawka numbers for our (at the moment) keeper.

Now I get regular Squawka stats for Fulham matches (I must have subscribed at some time in the past. It doesn't cost anything) and find them interesting enough without really understanding them, although they purport to be the result of comprehensive alysis of a player's contribution in any match. One thing that was noticeable last season was that individually our players regularly outperformed the actual results.

I mention this now because the Squawka ratings actually made Bettinelli our least effective player (rated -94) last season. The ratings appear to be a bit harsh on keepers (Lonergan had a similar rating), but, for comparison, Stockdale scored 293.

Our top rated player was, to no surprise, Ross with 1347.
After that, to somewhat more surprise, came Parker (926), Bodurov (702), LVC (586).

O'Hara was Blackpool's top rated player and Cairney was Blackburn's (1002).
Dunk was top rated for Brighton and MacDonald for Wolves.

How highly are these ratings...er, rated among the football experts, aparrantly they are based on Opta?

[FFCByTheRiver]

Wouldn't worry about the Squawka rating too much. Even the chaps in the Squawka office don't set much store by those as they're a bit dubious.

[Rupert]

Wouldn't worry about the Squawka rating too much. Even the chaps in the Squawka office don't set much store by those as they're a bit dubious.

How do you know the chaps in the Squawka office are a bit dubious?

What do they do to earn that description?

[FFCByTheRiver]

Wouldn't worry about the Squawka rating too much. Even the chaps in the Squawka office don't set much store by those as they're a bit dubious.

How do you know the chaps in the Squawka office are a bit dubious?

What do they do to earn that description?

Having been one of them for some time gave me a fair inkling. The general consensus that they were a bit misleading provides the description.

[ClarksOriginal]

Wouldn't worry about the Squawka rating too much. Even the chaps in the Squawka office don't set much store by those as they're a bit dubious.

How do you know the chaps in the Squawka office are a bit dubious?

What do they do to earn that description?

Having been one of them for some time gave me a fair inkling. The general consensus that they were a bit misleading provides the description.

Can only agree with what Ben has said. The parameters that they use to provide stats are dubious. Even the most effective player can look like a Sunday League fat-boy at the touch of a button.