Are SI ever going to deal with the ridiculous match ratings?

I had a guy on loan last season who is now back and playing for Man Utd.

He just scored a hat-trick in the Premiership against Birmingham yet Carlos Tevez was awarded the MOM awarded dor contributing 1 solitary assist.

Smithy.

Pas 22

Comp 15

Key 1

Tack 0

Won 0

Key 0

Head 6

Won 1

Key 1

Int 4

Run 1

Off 2

Fouls 1

Fld 0

Asst 0

Shot 3

SOT 3

Gls 3

Match rating 8.8

Carlos Tevez.

Pas 39

Comp 26

Key 3

Tack 0

Won 0

Key 0

Head 5

Won 2

Key 0

Int 6

Run 4

Off 0

Fouls 2

Fld 0

Asst 1

Shot 3

SOT 2

Gls 0

Match rating 8.9.

Both players played for 90 minutes however Smithy received a yellow card. Is the yellow card the reason that someone else gets the MOM award.

It's just silly and has needed to be sorted for as long as I have been playing CM/FM.

How did the goals look like? Judging from the stats, Smithy did not put in that much work on the field, unlike Tevez.

I see what the OP is saying, IRL its mainly the goalscorers/matchwinners that get the MOM. Occasionally 'keepers.

From those stats, it seems Tevez ran the show in attack. Much more passes, a good deal completed and 3 key passes. I'm not completely sure about key passes, but I think they're passes that lead to a goal. Assuming 1 of them's the assist, he played a major role in setting up 3 goals. That's quite something.

Tevez has way more passes, almost identical Shots and SOT (though no goals), 3 key passes, etc...

Simply judging off what you provided, Smithy looks to be in the better position for MOM, but the yellow card will hinder for sure, and he definitely didn't as much work. Seems he was poaching. Good for scoring goals, but doesnt' mean he was playing all that well.

My point is that there is now way that anyone would give the MOM award to a player that scored no goals when his striking partner scored a hat-trick, (no matter how industrious or hard-working he is).

If he had laid on all 3 goals then I could maybe understand it, but he didn't. He got 1 assist.

I'm not trying to diminish the importance of Tevez's contribution. I am suggesting that scoring a hat-trick should be more highly rated. It seems to me that a good pass % and a lack of being shown a yellow card is the main difference here.

It's just wrong.

I can't tell you what the goals look like because I don't have the Premiership running in full detail.

Key passes are not passes that lead to a goal. (That is an assist). Key passes are just important passes whether they lead to a goal or not.

Does anyone really think that they would have awarded Tevez the MOM award ahead of Smithy given those stats?:confused:

just cuz he scored a hattrick that dont mean he has to be man of the match smithy might of been everywhere doing the work while tevez just did 3 shots and a goal woopie..

IMO goals affect the match rating far too much so yes I think Tevez should have been MOTM.

Key passes are ones that lead to chances, assists are the final pass before a goal btw.

My point is that there is now way that anyone would give the MOM award to a player that scored no goals when his striking partner scored a hat-trick, (no matter how industrious or hard-working he is).

Wasn't robbie keane given mom against hull last night when jimmy defoe got a hattrick??

I am astounded that a performance which contributes 1 assist is more highly rated than a performance which contributed a hat-trick of goals.

Thank God real life isn't like that or Jermaine Defoe wouldn't have got MOM last night. lol

My point is that there is now way that anyone would give the MOM award to a player that scored no goals when his striking partner scored a hat-trick, (no matter how industrious or hard-working he is).

Wasn't robbie keane given mom against hull last night when jimmy defoe got a hattrick??

If he was then I would be astounded, but I am prepared to stand corrected.

TBF if someone just stood there and scored 3 goals, and a booking, would be less of a candidate for MoM than someone who worked his socks off for 90 minutes for 1 assist.

goals != best performer

As I mentioned, Smithy could have just been poaching.. sitting up front and kicking in things from really short distance. Valuable, absolutely, but it doesn't mean he was the man of the match.

You are all "bigging up" the Carlos Teves passes and key passes, (and rightly so), but you are then making the mistake of ignoreing the passes and key pass by Smithy.

It does work both ways you know.

Maybe I'm wrong. I certainly seem to be in the minority with this opinion.

Thank God real life isn't like that or Jermaine Defoe wouldn't have got MOM last night. lol

If he was then I would be astounded, but I am prepared to stand corrected.

I may be wrong but thats what it said on SkySports News. he was very good and was key in all Spurs done well (i hate saying that being a gooner)

Defoe scored 3 but Keane ran tho show (again according to ss news)

Thats nowhere near as bad as all the times your CB or FB gets man of the match for scraping a goal at a set piece, despite your AMC running the show all game and getting 2 assists.

Those stats don't say it all tho. Tevez could of covered the length of pitch 15 times and could of really been a constant threat! hence the 0.1 rating more.

and smithy could of just played around the edge of the 18 yrd box!

Those stats don't say it all tho. Tevez could of covered the length of pitch 15 times and could of really been a constant threat! hence the 0.1 rating more.

and smithy could of just played around the edge of the 18 yrd box!

He could have, but none of the stats that we are looking at suggest that what you are implying was actually the case.

Comparing the Keane/Defoe situation to this one doesn't quite wash either as Keane scored himself and also provided 2 assists, (significantly greater impact than Tevez).

Tevez covered 9.5km during the match.

Smith covered 8km during the match.

If you want top award him the MOM award for covering more ground then we might as well just give it to Hargreaves who covered 9.7km during the match.

Oh well. Looks like you all agree that things are working well.

I agree with you Jimbo.. I've had numerous situations where one player has single handedly taken down the opposing team.. yet another player gets the MoM..

Although I must admit I dont see it as a problem as such.. but I do find it weird..

I don't find it a massive problem personally but I do agree with Jimbo here. IRL I think that the hat-trick scorer would get the award.

We're not saying it IS functioning properly, just that it might be. Just because he scored a hat-trick doesn't mean he was the best. The info you've provided isn't enough to judge, there's a number of things that could've contributed.

My problem here is just that I gave Smithy his league debut while on loan at my Scunthorpe side so as a side interest to my own game I am following his career.

The reason that I am suggesting that it is a bigger problem than many of you currently agree, is because as I am sure you all know, player valuations are linked with player performances. And performances are judged by match ratings. I don't know about anyone else but I want my strikers to score goals. If they then are not judged on what I want them to do.... then what do I make of player valuations?

For a long time now I have meen going on and on about a seperate formulae for GK's, (so that they are not judged on in the same way as outfield players), and I understand, (although I am not 100% sure), that FM09 included this for the first time.

Now the next step is to find a fair way of guaging the performances of players in different positions.

If what we want from a SC is different to what we want from a DM, then how can we rate their performances based on 1 static level of valuations for each action.

I really would have thought that the way to go is a seperate formulae for all the different positions.

The problem is that this will be a time-consuming exercise and until it is 100% correct will impact on other areas of the game.

Answers on a postcard to SI I think.

We're not saying it IS functioning properly, just that it might be. Just because he scored a hat-trick doesn't mean he was the best. The info you've provided isn't enough to judge, there's a number of things that could've contributed.

Like what ?

I have always had problems with my AMC's, but now that you mention the upfront issues I will watch a lot more in my long term game than before.

AMC's seem to never get any high ratings unless they score or assist and I still don't consider that their role in my team, they are there to run the game for me generally holding up the ball feeding my wings who then cross it to my big scoring striker. (Or feeding the fast striker to run through the middle).

I think the whole system is just baffling...I love the idea of a position based formula.

I have always had problems with my AMC's, but now that you mention the upfront issues I will watch a lot more in my long term game than before.

AMC's seem to never get any high ratings unless they score or assist and I still don't consider that their role in my team,

Ive noticed that too, theyre always 5.5-6 unless theres goals or assists theres, that seems to be a weak point in the ratings.

As for people claiming a man who got a hattick wouldnt be MOM. Ive yet to see anyone who got a HT not get MOM unless it was something like an 8-0 win and someone else ran the show and got 5 or 6 assists. People always make up excuses for flaws in the game, this is a classic example.