MATHMAN UPDATE

[mathman]

Re: MATHMAN UPDATE

Hi Mathman-

I assume that you surprised at the results of the Stars/Scorpions game? Do you think Stars got lucky as many do or do you think that actually they've moved beyond where they were last year as your ratings might reflect?

If you are talking about the U15 Stars/Scorpions Region I game, I am not sure that my opinion counts for much. As a *very* general rule (which is broken all the time), every 100 points (or so) in rating difference corresponds to 1 goal in GD. So I would have expected something like a 3-goal game. 5 goals is rather more than that, but not unheard of for a rating difference of 250 points.

It was a pretty dominant performance by the Stars, from what I saw (almost the entire game: I think I left with about 10 minutes remaining). I don't know what "got lucky" would be referring to here (nor do I have any interest in discussing it).

The only thing I did find surprising was that I would have guessed that the national team player on the field was the Stars player who scored 3 (?) goals. She really seemed to be on a different level. But my kids were always forwards, so I notice that position more than others.

Re: MATHMAN UPDATE

Hi Mathman-

I assume that you surprised at the results of the Stars/Scorpions game? Do you think Stars got lucky as many do or do you think that actually they've moved beyond where they were last year as your ratings might reflect?

Which Stars game did you see? Or did you see both?

So you think Stars where lucky?

Re: MATHMAN UPDATE

Hi Mathman-

I assume that you surprised at the results of the Stars/Scorpions game? Do you think Stars got lucky as many do or do you think that actually they've moved beyond where they were last year as your ratings might reflect?

If you are talking about the U15 Stars/Scorpions Region I game, I am not sure that my opinion counts for much. As a *very* general rule (which is broken all the time), every 100 points (or so) in rating difference corresponds to 1 goal in GD. So I would have expected something like a 3-goal game. 5 goals is rather more than that, but not unheard of for a rating difference of 250 points.

It was a pretty dominant performance by the Stars, from what I saw (almost the entire game: I think I left with about 10 minutes remaining). I don't know what "got lucky" would be referring to here (nor do I have any interest in discussing it).

The only thing I did find surprising was that I would have guessed that the national team player on the field was the Stars player who scored 3 (?) goals. She really seemed to be on a different level. But my kids were always forwards, so I notice that position more than others.

It is easier to quantify what forwards and keepers do - nature of the beast.

Re: MATHMAN UPDATE

Hi Mathman-

I assume that you surprised at the results of the Stars/Scorpions game? Do you think Stars got lucky as many do or do you think that actually they've moved beyond where they were last year as your ratings might reflect?

Which Stars game did you see? Or did you see both?

So you think Stars where lucky?

No I don't. That was what was said last year after the Stars big region one win and before the state cup final. The reasoning is somewhat different this year - instead of missing the NT player completely, she'd been away and has not able to train with the team so timing was off. I think Stars has passed them at this point

Re: MATHMAN UPDATE

Why no rating for FCGB GU15?

Re: MATHMAN UPDATE

Maybe not enough games yet? Brand new team with just a couple returners since the bulk of the team moved with the coach to Stars Rovers.

[mathman]

Re: MATHMAN UPDATE

Why no rating for FCGB GU15?

My mistake. They need to have a certain number of rated games before appearing, and in the case of leagues, I wait until the league is finished to enter the number of games (way too confusing otherwise), though I do enter the updated rating. So in the database, they only have 6 rated games (too few to be published), whereas I actually have 11 for them (a sufficient number to be published).

I will ask the webmaster to fix this. They should appear in the next few days.

Their rating as of 5/4 is 1135.

Re: MATHMAN UPDATE

Quite remarkable that the Bolts have been able to put together a team pretty much from scratch that is now ranked 11th in Mass. They are ahead of or close to a lot of teams that have been in existence a lot longer (e.g., Renegades).

Re: MATHMAN UPDATE

Quite remarkable that the Bolts have been able to put together a team pretty much from scratch that is now ranked 11th in Mass. They are ahead of or close to a lot of teams that have been in existence a lot longer (e.g., Renegades).

How would you explain the number of rated games being so high then, in relation to renegades for example, if this team was built from scratch? From what little I know, MPS doesnt generally field teams until U13. SOE comes into play but who knows how many players from their teams have gone thru it?

This Renegade team may have been built from scratch as well and if so, may be more impressive than Bolts as they are at the same level with half the rated games.

Re: MATHMAN UPDATE

Quite remarkable that the Bolts have been able to put together a team pretty much from scratch that is now ranked 11th in Mass. They are ahead of or close to a lot of teams that have been in existence a lot longer (e.g., Renegades).

How would you explain the number of rated games being so high then, in relation to renegades for example, if this team was built from scratch? From what little I know, MPS doesnt generally field teams until U13. SOE comes into play but who knows how many players from their teams have gone thru it?

This Renegade team may have been built from scratch as well and if so, may be more impressive than Bolts as they are at the same level with half the rated games.

Scratch the above....was looking at U14. Apologies!!