Best Player Award is really stupid

I got this problem a few times. World Cup/ECC Best Player Award was given to someone whose team only reached 1/4 final, and their stats are not very good. In real life this kind of award will never give someone who does not reach semi final unless they are very good.

The best player award generally goes to who played best, not who has the best stats. This is how it is supposed to work, it's not "stupid" like you claim.

I think we need to know who the winner was and who was in the Final.

Did this player have good performances against much better teams?

Are there other players who deserve the award more than this guy/

I'm sorry the award gave someone who reached 1/4 final, Villa had 3 goals 3 assists, not very impressive.

He only had 1 assist in 1/8 against Germany after group stage, and no goals. He did not even have 1 second in the 1/4 loss against Italy.

My Almeida scored 6 goals, 2 in the semi final against Serbia, won the Golden Boot and 2 assists, 1 in the final against Italy. CR scored 5 goals, 1 in the final. Veloso scored 5 goals, 2 in the semi final and 2 in the final.

I did have a situation a couple seasons back where my keeper for Grasshopper, who'd played every league game and only let in 18 goals, lost "Best Keeper" to a keeper from a bigger team who'd spent half the season injured and let in 17 goals in the other half. I found that to be slightly irritating.

I did have a situation a couple seasons back where my keeper for Grasshopper, who'd played every league game and only let in 18 goals, lost "Best Keeper" to a keeper from a bigger team who'd spent half the season injured and let in 17 goals in the other half. I found that to be slightly irritating.

That'll probably be because of league reputation. It's much harder to play well in a tougher league and that's taken into consideration. The Swiss leagues are not known for their high levels of football.

In the real life World Cup Golden Ball will never give someone who did not show up after 1/8 final and only had 1 assist in the knockout stage instead of someone who scored 4 goals in semi final and final, won the Cup.

My feeling is that the award system is very flawed. Worked better before.

Yes that sounds daft. If you are Portugal and plyers are getting 5/6/7 goals from midfield then that seems to justify one of them getting the award.

IRL If a player won it and his team only made the quarter final it would be a poor standard of World Cup.

When I was managing in China I had a 6ft 5 Ghanaian centre back regen who the small chinese players couldn't handle at set pieces. He scored 19 goals in 28 games with an average rating of 7.64 but they gave the award to some midfielder who had 12 goals and an average rating of 7.28.

Might have been because of reputation, but I still wasn't very pleased about it

In 1994 Oleg Salenko (A virtual Unknown) won the golden boot for scoring 6 goals, for which 5 came in 1 game against a very poor Cameroon. Of his 6 goals, 2 were penalties. He also won the Golden Ball for best player.

Russia did not get past the group stage. 1994 World Cup was known for its fantastic goals and great team efforts and come backs.

Salenko who was 26 at the World Cup 94, went on to play a mere 35 more games in 6 years in top flight football, and only had 9 caps for his country the day he retired. (Scoring 6 goals, all in a WC).

I guess this is a bug in real life.

To the post above me, I doubt the chinese "couldnt handle <your cb> at set pieces". I bet he was set to challenge the keeper. The match engine couldnt handle it imo (Known Bug).

In 1994 Oleg Salenko (A virtual Unknown) won the golden boot for scoring 6 goals, for which 5 came in 1 game against a very poor Cameroon. Of his 6 goals, 2 were penalties. He also won the Golden Ball for best player.

No, Romário won it.

Ha, is that what I get for searching random sites in Yahoo?

I'm 100% sure 1994 Golden Ball is Romário.

Since 1982, all of the Golden Ball winner's team reached World Cup final, except 1990 the winner is Schillaci from Italy.

Yep, I went on the FIFA sites this time and you guys are right. I basically googled a poorly translated site on Yahoo.

Well it happened again, I won Euro 2012 by coaching Holland, Sneijder scored 2 goals in Portugal 1:1 group match and 1:0 Crotaia semifinal, 1 assist in the final against Italy, average score is 7.25. Van der Vaart scored 4 goals and 2 assists, 1 against Turkey 1:1 group match, 2 goals and 1 assist in the 3:2 1/4 final against Spain, 1 goal and 1 assist in the 3:2 final against Italy. Score is 7.50. But MVP goes to Sneijder.

That'll probably be because of league reputation. It's much harder to play well in a tougher league and that's taken into consideration. The Swiss leagues are not known for their high levels of football.

It was the yearly Swiss League award; I lost it to Frank Costanzo of FC Basel.

Yep, I went on the FIFA sites this time and you guys are right. I basically googled a poorly translated site on Yahoo.

I prefer your version, evn if it is completely wrong

So would a fairer way to do it be best average rating, but biased towards maximum no. of games played, then subsequently by no. of goals/assits?

In 1994 Oleg Salenko (A virtual Unknown) won the golden boot for scoring 6 goals, for which 5 came in 1 game against a very poor Cameroon. Of his 6 goals, 2 were penalties. He also won the Golden Ball for best player.

Oleg Salenko won the Golden Shoe award along with Hristo Stoichkov since they were the joint top scorers with 6 goals each. Romario won the Golden Ball award for being the tournaments best player.

The best player award generally goes to who played best, not who has the best stats. This is how it is supposed to work, it's not "stupid" like you claim.

Cause and effect?

Wouldn't the player who played the best (in FM) also, in the long run, have the best stats?

Their average rating would be higher, since it is calculated on various stats, such as tackles made, headers won, and runs past opponents. Their, goals, assists or clean sheets would also be higher.

This is a serious question - would a player who "played better" (in FM) possibly get poorer stats over a tournement or a season compared to others? Is there some non-numerical measure of how they played?

In 1994 Oleg Salenko (A virtual Unknown) won the golden boot for scoring 6 goals, for which 5 came in 1 game against a very poor Cameroon. Of his 6 goals, 2 were penalties. He also won the Golden Ball for best player.

Russia did not get past the group stage. 1994 World Cup was known for its fantastic goals and great team efforts and come backs.

Salenko who was 26 at the World Cup 94, went on to play a mere 35 more games in 6 years in top flight football, and only had 9 caps for his country the day he retired. (Scoring 6 goals, all in a WC).

I guess this is a bug in real life.

To the post above me, I doubt the chinese "couldnt handle <your cb> at set pieces". I bet he was set to challenge the keeper. The match engine couldnt handle it imo (Known Bug).

The golden boot is awarded to the player that has scored the most goals in the tournament. Salenko won it along with Hristo Stoichkov. It has nothing to do with being the best player.