Man Of The Match V Sunderland

[Everton_Worshiper]

First, it wouldn't be enough reward for truly stand out performances like Pienaar's, which you do get with the current system.

Second, MOTM in a dire performance (Wigan away for example) would get the same points as MOTM in (say) the semi against United. That can't be right surely?

 

Mike, I don't agree with this.

In a game a MOTM is always picked no matter how good or bad a game has been. When MOTM in a game is picked, he doesn't get an extra big bottle of champagne because he played so well he just gets a bottle of champagne regardless of the level of the performance. In the history books a player is marked as MOTM, not MOTM with an asterix and italic text saying "he played really well in this game.

 

Personally I like the 3-2-1 points system, that way a consistent performer gets the points - just like a team winning a game, they get 3 points not more points if they score over 5 goals in the game etc.

 

Just my 2p worth...

[jamiemaher85]

It is a tricky one, but personally I think it should be the three point system (or something along those lines). Even if the team give a dire performance then the MOTm still deserves as much credit. It's like if someone finishes as top scorer for the team, just becasue some goals where scrappy in a bad game, it should not detract from other goals or the overall tally at the end of the season.

 

I have stayed out of this debate which seems to have reoccured throughout the year because I have always felt that the overall table has fairly shown who has been our best players, but with Pienaat storming up the table with only 2 brilliant performances this year it shows that something needs to be done. Don't get me wrong, Pienaar deserved to be MOTM in those 2 great performances, but to possibly win our award? That seems a little much to me and just shows there should be a re-think.

 

This is all just my opinion though and I don't want to criticise to heavily as it is clearly a trciky area and there is no black and white clear answer to to situation.

[MikeO]

In a game a MOTM is always picked no matter how good or bad a game has been. When MOTM in a game is picked, he doesn't get an extra big bottle of champagne because he played so well he just gets a bottle of champagne regardless of the level of the performance. In the history books a player is marked as MOTM, not MOTM with an asterix and italic text saying "he played really well in this game.

 

Personally I like the 3-2-1 points system, that way a consistent performer gets the points - just like a team winning a game, they get 3 points not more points if they score over 5 goals in the game etc.

 

Just my 2p worth...

Take your point; following that through then should we just give one point for MOTM and nothing for anyone else?

Trouble is that Felli has got (as Taxi said) most MOTM's so he'd win under that system, and I don't think there's many on here who think that'd be the right result.

 

Giving 2 and 1 points for games like Sunday's seems open to the "voting for favourites" that everyone hates. Couple of people giving a daft vote for (say) Saha and he's on the podium .

And again, I've not added it up, but I suspect that Fellaini would be ahead under that system as well.

[jamiemaher85]

I'd go along with 1 point for MOTM and nothing else. I think that is as fair as we could get it.

[Everton_Worshiper]

Take your point; following that through then should we just give one point for MOTM and nothing for anyone else?

Trouble is that Felli has got (as Taxi said) most MOTM's so he'd win under that system, and I don't think there's many on here who think that'd be the right result.

 

Giving 2 and 1 points for games like Sunday's seems open to the "voting for favourites" that everyone hates. Couple of people giving a daft vote for (say) Saha and he's on the podium .

And again, I've not added it up, but I suspect that Fellaini would be ahead under that system as well.

 

Oh dear, didn't think about that...let's not use that system then!

 

Seriously though, it is a difficult one to suit everybody. However, if that is the way the votes go then that is the way votes go. Just look at PFA player of the year, Giggs!??!?! Based on this seasons performance from Giggs I think not, players seemed to vote for him as a tribute (ala Felli IMO).

 

I do think a strict points system is better than a cumulative per match vote system...but still don't have a definitive answer for you.

 

[holystove]

... but I suspect that Fellaini would be ahead under that system as well.

 

so we need a system to avoid that .. hmmm

well maybe we can start by giving each English player a 1 vote headstart just to make it work for efctaxi .. even our coach is scottish , where will it end?

 

 

or here's what you could do : just have the MOTM as it is now, but don't count up the votes. Just register as "this guy won that week". Then at the end of the season, have a new poll. Give the data on who won different MOTM throughout the year, so people can remember how certain games went. That'll be the player of the year poll. I'm sure in this season, jags would win in such a scenario. So there's a system in which an English player wins, and Fellaini might not even crack the top 5.

[sheedysheedysheedy]

I think the current system works well with the only flaw being the number of votes made on a weekly basis (i.e some weeks may see 20 votes whereas other see 50 therefore the players winning in those weeks would benefit greatly). The only way around this as far as I can see is to award points based on the percentage of the vote therefore each game offers an equal number of points.

 

Just a thought but as i said I think the current system is ok!

[StevO]

i think this is the best system we have now, looking at the table as it is, i think most would agree its pretty fair.

 

maybe have a side award for total of MOTM as well

[Guest efctaxi]

Few ideas , not all feasable .

 

1 . Give motm it's own forum .

Prevent the results from being shown untill the poll is closed , and change the admin settings to ' can post ' and ' can't read ' .

This then stops people from simply casting their vote along with the majority .

 

Once the majority of votes are in , then allow everyone to ' read ' again , and discuss accordingly , by either dragging it into a different forum , or lifting the admin settings untill the next one .

Would be fun to see what everyone had written with their first ' unbiased ' post .

 

2 . Have a poll which allows us to give each player a mark seperately , with the maximum number of players used being the maximum number score your motm can get .

Injured players get an ' average mark ' per game in their absence . This would still allow players to receive votes in honour of past performances . Everybody gets at least marks .

 

3 . 3-2-1 is unfair .

The whole team can play well , and only 3 guys get points . Not good .

If we are playing badly , the defence will likely get motm , because the midfield is breaking down . The strikers can't do too much about it if they don't get the ball etc .

 

Fook . Missing match . Cya

Edited May 5, 2009 by efctaxi

[Bill]

Taxi said .........The best players for me this season have been Fellaini , Jags , Pienaar , and Baines in no particular order.

 

I agree, and thats how it shows up in the list at present, so why is it the wrong way to do it. ?

 

 

Tho i do think that the Grand Prix scoring might be a better way of doing it, The man with the most votes gets 6 points and decrease by one for each position after that down to 1 vote for the sixth highest, thats if 6 players do get votes of course.

[StevO]

the same arguments every year, as bill said, the table reflects most peoples opinions, so we must be doing something right.

its not often more than 3 players shine in a match, its fair as it is.

 

and please, everybody consider the amount of work mike already puts into this!

Edited May 5, 2009 by StevO

[zequist]

I also agree...our top four are our top four, which says to me that the system is working. It never occurred to me that there might be a problem with it. And the only ways I can think to change it that might make it fairer all involve some funky algebra that I don't think Mike would want to get into.

[Guest efctaxi]

I agree .

Give it to Mo and let's have done with it ( before Jimmy gets back lol )

[holystove]

I'm not all that up to date with what can be done with these kinds of forums, but is it possible to give a "Top 3" for each match?