Players ratings (ala Lomu rugby)

For my first topic I thought it would be fun to run a ratings system for current players, nothing too serious, just a few different NH/SH views on players.

I'll start the ball rolling with Dan Carter, easily the best 10 of his generation, and probably still the best 10 on the planet, I'd rate him at 89 / 100. A few years ago maybe he would've ranked in the low 90's, but he isn't that guy today.

So there you go, let's all rank up a player and discuss why people think they should gain/lose points

to make the whole thing somewhat consistent we'd need the top 10, a mid-carder, and a low rent one. so with Carter at 89, we'd need somebody like Flood being around 81, then a lower quality 10 Like Orquera could be around 75. Then with the other players people rate , they can be rated based on these three in terms of global standing, on field influence, skill set in relation to position etc. with carter quality being top and so on.

Good idea butterfingers.

But I would suggest you begin with the core values for each position as a starting point.

EG Flyhalf.
Defence
Tactical kicking
Goal kicking
Drop goal accuracy
Distribution
ability to hit a gap
accuracy of pass
Ability to attack

etc.

Then give a point out of ten for each aspect.

I had considered listing characteristics, but there are so many and there is a lot of debate as what they are, how weighted they should be, or even how players actually have them.

Plus most players characteristics depend on what happens inside them, for example Mike Phillips being called slow could be attributed to a Welsh gameplan, Coopers lack of tackling grunt doesn't help being hidden on the wing, or Morne Steyns lack of athletasism attributed to the African gameplan, and the percise nature of his boot etc.

I also think instinctive decision making is about important as technical ability, Ritchie Mccaw hasn't become world class because his distribution, carrying or offload game is any good.

I like the idea of a scale, maybe the Carter - Michalak coefficient? Wherein (89) is top of the scale for international 10's and Michalak is the bottom (70) and players such as Biggar and Flood (well rounded and reliable but not spectacular) are the mid range (80)?

How about we use the scale, but also the core values. So their positioning on the scale starting points (say 90, 80, 70) is based on their position related skills/job and match influence/importance. Following that you deduct or add points based on other skills.

For example Cian Healy would be midrange for scrummaging, so starts off at 80, then for his speed, defence, attack, add on another three or four points. Making him 84.

The likes of Croft would start out at 80, add maybe 3 for his speed, lineout, and attack, but then deduct one for weak breakdown work and another for being less involved where flankers are traditionally expected to (around contact area/breakdown) leaving him at 81