Alright, folks, today I wanted to walk you through how I put together my player ratings for that big Chivas de Guadalajara versus Club América match. It’s always a heated one, and I try to be as fair as I can when I do these things.
So, first things first, I made sure I was set up to really watch the game. No distractions. I had my coffee, a notepad, and a pen. Old school, I know, but it works for me. I don’t go in with a super rigid system beforehand, but I have a general idea of what I’m looking for.
As the match kicked off, I started making notes pretty much straight away. For the Chivas players, I was looking at individual involvements. Like, for their goalkeeper, I’d note down any significant saves, or if he looked a bit shaky on crosses. Then for the defenders, I’d be watching their positioning, how they dealt with América’s attacks – did they make crucial tackles, or were they getting pulled out of shape?
It’s not just about the big moments, either. Sometimes it’s the little things. A midfielder for Chivas, for example, might not score or assist, but if he’s constantly breaking up play or making smart passes that keep possession, that’s important. I try to catch that stuff. I’d scribble down things like “good work rate” or “lost the ball too often.”
Then, I’d do the exact same for the Club América squad. Their forwards, were they getting into good positions? Were they wasteful, or clinical? Sometimes a striker can be isolated, and it’s not entirely his fault, so I try to consider the team’s overall play too. For their midfielders, I’d look at who was trying to dictate the tempo, who was making those driving runs or killer passes.
It’s a constant process of observing and noting. If a player made a really obvious mistake that led to a chance, I’d make a bold note of that. Same for a moment of brilliance.
Once the final whistle blew, I gave it a little time. Let the immediate emotions settle, you know? Then I’d go back through my notes, player by player, for both Chivas and América.
This is where I start to form the actual ratings. I don’t have a complex algorithm or anything. It’s more about looking at my overall impression based on my notes. Did the player have a positive impact, a negative one, or were they just sort of… there? I try to be consistent. If a defender for Chivas had a solid game with a couple of key interventions, he’d get a good mark. If an América attacker missed a sitter and was generally quiet, that would be reflected too.
It can be tough, especially for players who didn’t have a lot to do, or for substitutes who only got a few minutes. For them, I usually just note if they managed to make any sort of impact, good or bad, in their limited time.
And yeah, sometimes you re-think things. I might initially feel a player was average, but then I’ll look at my notes and see a few important contributions I’d jotted down, and I might adjust the rating a bit higher. Or the other way around.
So, that’s pretty much my method. Just careful watching, taking notes, and then trying to make a fair judgment on each player’s performance for that specific Chivas vs Club América game. It’s subjective, of course, but that’s the nature of player ratings, isn’t it? Just my take on how they all did.
