Hibs 0 -2 Rangers - Player Ratings (with exclusive glimpse of new Gersnet main site!)

[Frankie 8,183]

OK, not the most exciting thread in the world but with this article you can get your first look at the beta version of our new website.

 

http://beta.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/footer-match-analysis/343-hibernian-0-2-rangers-player-ratings

 

Obviously the new main site is in an unfinished state but we're ahead of schedule with the redesign so thought it was now worth sharing with forum members to see if they can break it (and or find any issues)

 

As always, all feedback is welcome: good or bad and with respect to the ratings or the site design.

 

Remember, we're looking for new writers and article submissions so if you fancy writing a match preview, doing some ratings (along the same lines/length as these) or have something else to get off your chest, please give Zappa or myself a shout.

[Tannochsidebear 2,320]

As always with ratings, everyone has a totally different view of how most players played. I think Jig got about 8 points too many but I appreciate I am clouded by his gross ineptitude! I also dont understand how Black & Vuckic got 5 points each when all Black done was concede a dangerous free kick and Vuckic got involved with a Hibs player in a skirmish around the halfway line. Both contributed nothing to our cause and to give them just two points less than some players who contributed greatly to our win is annoying to me. 2 or 3 should be all they got for such a short shift. Agree with Wallace's 9, Shiels McGregor & Murdoch all getting 8, and Miller/Law being the lowest, although slightly generous with 6 as a 5 would have been enough for their hide and seek performances.

[Frankie 8,183]

As always with ratings, everyone has a totally different view of how most players played. I think Jig got about 8 points too many but I appreciate I am clouded by his gross ineptitude! I also dont understand how Black & Vuckic got 5 points each when all Black done was concede a dangerous free kick and Vuckic got involved with a Hibs player in a skirmish around the halfway line. Both contributed nothing to our cause and to give them just two points less than some players who contributed greatly to our win is annoying to me. 2 or 3 should be all they got for such a short shift. Agree with Wallace's 9, Shiels McGregor & Murdoch all getting 8, and Miller/Law being the lowest, although slightly generous with 6 as a 5 would have been enough for their hide and seek performances.

 

Ratings are a subjective experience so we'll often have to disagree on individual players. Usually when subs come on I start from 5 and work up or down depending on their contribution. I thought Black and Vuckic did OK so was happy to stick at 5. Miller and Law weren't great but did enough in their greater time on the pitch to score better.

 

It's not an exact science - just a bit of fun and if people fancy a shot at submitting ratings for the next game instead of trying to rationalise mine, then they'll be most welcome!

 

Any comments on the new site design?

Edited March 23, 2015 by Frankie

[simplythebest 0]

Seems good, I found the old design a bit confusing at times

[ranger_syntax 3,795]

Any comments on the new site design?

 

Looks good on desktop and mobile.

 

My only comment would be that the initial page load is very slow.

[Davie P 4]

In principal , I would probably agree with the assessments, although once again, Law was woeful. 6 is hugely generous. My guess is that he is a confidence player, and when things are not going to plan, he hides. Compare that to Scott Allen for Hibs, who did not have a great game, but was always looking to get onto the ball and to make things happen. A bit petulant with his foul on Vuckic though.

 

I thought that Miller was far too distant from Clark and he provided very little threat (apart from the goal of course!) Shiels put an effort in, but probably a 6 at best. Murdoch had an excellent game and I would have given him and Wallace the joint man of the match award, with a score of 8.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Davie P

[Frankie 8,183]

Looks good on desktop and mobile.

 

My only comment would be that the initial page load is very slow.

 

Yeah, it's a bit slow but we've still to optimise a few things.

 

Existing site is also a bit slow as well.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

As always with ratings, everyone has a totally different view of how most players played. I think Jig got about 8 points too many but I appreciate I am clouded by his gross ineptitude! I also dont understand how Black & Vuckic got 5 points each when all Black done was concede a dangerous free kick and Vuckic got involved with a Hibs player in a skirmish around the halfway line. Both contributed nothing to our cause and to give them just two points less than some players who contributed greatly to our win is annoying to me. 2 or 3 should be all they got for such a short shift. Agree with Wallace's 9, Shiels McGregor & Murdoch all getting 8, and Miller/Law being the lowest, although slightly generous with 6 as a 5 would have been enough for their hide and seek performances.

Our defence were much better than usual but that doesn't mean they were good. On the occasions Hibs got in our box they were all over the place.

[Tannochsidebear 2,320]

Ratings are a subjective experience so we'll often have to disagree on individual players. Usually when subs come on I start from 5 and work up or down depending on their contribution. I thought Black and Vuckic did OK so was happy to stick at 5. Miller and Law weren't great but did enough in their greater time on the pitch to score better.

 

It's not an exact science - just a bit of fun and if people fancy a shot at submitting ratings for the next game instead of trying to rationalise mine, then they'll be most welcome!

 

Any comments on the new site design?

 

I have no problem agreeing/disagreeing with any ratings system and treat it as a bit of fun and discussion pointers. Sorry if it came across as anything else. I can understand your rationale with the subs, and I think most papers used to do something similar. hey-ho!

 

The new site looks good, easy to read, nice and bright and clear. I dont go through the main site for any of the forums I use as I have links set up to bypass them straight to the forums, as i guess most users do, and any articles posted to the main site are usually copied in to here anyway, but I am guessing you need a good front page to attract new users and if that is the objective, your new front page will certainly do the trick.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Pleased to note that "Russian Women Want (Me)".

 

Nice clear design, well done.