Scoring a goal affects avg. rating too much?

Imo, scoring a goal is giving players a higher avg. rating than is deserved. Ratings jump a mile when a striker scores the basic of goals and too often it is leading to undesevred man of the match awards.

Surely defenders avg rating should be judged more on tackles, interceptions, headers won rather than a goal from a corner. My defender was not having the best of games, scores from a corner and his rating jumps to 8.1 and he gets man of the match.

Anyone else feel the same?

From purely a statistical point of view I would agree. But not from a media and fan viewpoint. Goals are the gold that win you games. A player that has a rubbish game for 90 minutes but is able to score the winner is not only pretty much totally forgiven, but given a heroes welcome. And given their ratings during games very much affect things like media/fan adulation, transfer value etc, I think it is realistic.

If a player plays like crap every single game but also scores every single game, he still remains very valuable and you would more than likely have him in your side.

I agree with the post definitely. I recently lost 5-1 and my leftback was responsible for at least two, maybe three of the goals I conceded but he scored a freekick for me and so got a 7.6 rating even though he was largely responsible for such a heavy defeat. Going slightly off topic for a second, I actually find that when I get thrashed by someone, the ratings of the defenders don't actually seam to reflect the performance they have put in, e.g. getting 6.9 ot 7.0 ratings, even though they have messed up for a goal or given away possession that led to a goal.

I have to agree with Dundalis, so many times irl you see a player have a very mediocre game but pop up with the vital goal and take the man of the match award!

I can understand the op's viewpoint, but irl defenders are often under-rated as they dont get the glory. But I for one would be really annoyed if my goal-a-game striker had poor ratings just because he faded in and out of games. Goals win prizes!

But irl scoring a goal does not guarantee man of the match so why should FM?? How often did Ruud Van Nistelrooy score tap ins for United only for Scholes or co to pick up man of the match for running the show. I just feel FM is not a realistic representation of how the rating system works irl.

I think the goal should increase your chance of getting MotM but not your rating. MotM is very often the scorer of the winning goal, but it doesn't mean you played well and your rating shouldn't be affected so much.

"Imo, scoring a goal is giving players a higher avg. rating than is deserved. Ratings jump a mile when a striker scores the basic of goals and too often it is leading to undesevred man of the match awards."

I agree, but it has been scaled down compared to previous versions.

I agree, but it has been scaled down compared to previous versions.

I think it stands out alot more now because of the decimal point rating system. I never had an issue with it before because it was alot harder to see the extent of the problem.

I just feel FM is not a realistic representation of how the rating system works irl.

But there isn't a rating system in real life. There's simply the opinions of various writers, who give their marks out of ten. It's a highly subjective rating that is derived from the highly flawed method of people watching the game and presumably paying attention to every single player every second of the game. Which is impossible. The degree of difference in a rating from source to source can be massive, depending on the observer.

Likewise, Man of the Match isn't some official honour bestowed upon the objectively best player. It's an arbitrary award give out by a sponsor. When a newspaper gives out Man of the Match in their ratings, it can differ from that given out by another newspaper. Again it's a subjective view derived from a flawed system.

What FM manages to do in the most part is use the ratings to give an indication of the players actual contribution to the match. Ratings from real life don't do that.

But there isn't a rating system in real life. There's simply the opinions of various writers, who give their marks out of ten. It's a highly subjective rating that is derived from the highly flawed method of people watching the game and presumably paying attention to every single player every second of the game. Which is impossible. The degree of difference in a rating from source to source can be massive, depending on the observer.

Likewise, Man of the Match isn't some official honour bestowed upon the objectively best player. It's an arbitrary award give out by a sponsor. When a newspaper gives out Man of the Match in their ratings, it can differ from that given out by another newspaper. Again it's a subjective view derived from a flawed system.

What FM manages to do in the most part is use the ratings to give an indication of the players actual contribution to the match. Ratings from real life don't do that.

True, sorry I used bad wording to get my point across, I wasn't trying to compare the avg.rating system to anything irl. Stats such as passing, tackling etc are monitored by opta for the EPL though.

Ratings need reworking. Conversely, if a defender hasn't put a foot wrong all game in which his team is winning 5-0 and is rated at 8.0+, if he gives a penalty away he drops to 5.0, which is a bit harsh.

It happens all the time, I'm about to sub a striker on a 6 in the 75th minute when he scores and instantly jumps to an 8, often the sub has already been made too.

I think the goal should increase your chance of getting MotM but not your rating. MotM is very often the scorer of the winning goal, but it doesn't mean you played well and your rating shouldn't be affected so much.

MotM = guy with the highest rating at the end of the match

lol.