Is average team rating the most important stat?

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t285/wbabaggie/mancity.jpg

If you look at the link posted I have just done to the AI what a lot of people complain about on here. I managed 2 shots on target created no ccc's yet won 2-1.

I think a quick review of the stats not hard to see that Man City were on top really.

However the big difference is the average team rating.

I have quickly reviewed my results and usually the best performing team on this stat wins the game regardless of the stats above.

Another screenie from my tactic thread

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t285/wbabaggie/bigdefeat.jpg

You can see here from the top stats I look the better team. However the players of Blackpool clearly have a better average rating.

In summary when you lose a game should you be judging it on the rating of your players in the game regardless of how many chances/shots you have created?

Player ratings are massively skewed by goals, assists and - for defenders and goalkeepers - the number of goals conceded. So it's no surprise that the team that wins will almost always have the better average rating.

You don't win because you have the best average rating; you have the best average rating because you win

Player ratings are massively skewed by goals, assists and - for defenders and goalkeepers - the number of goals conceded. So it's no surprise that the team that wins will almost always have the better average rating.

You don't win because you have the best average rating; you have the best average rating because you win

yeah i can have a striker at 6.1 and he scores a fluke and he jumps to say 7.2 a defender conceeds a penalty and he drops from 6.5 to 4.9

from just the first screen though id point out though that man city had most of there shots as long shots and so maybe wernt as dominant as it seems in my experience if possesion is within 5 % of 50 % then it doesnt mean much.