Goalkeeper ratings (in particular) are simply shi*

Stupid, absolutely stupid is the way the game engine calculates its "rating" for each player.

If after all these years the makers can't get a realistic way of calculating ratings, it shows just how poor creativity/delevopment is.

Goalkeeper against me made 6 1 on 1 saves (7 in total) in a 0-0 draw, and didnt even get a rating of 7. Yet the 4 defenders who were obviously so bad to let my players get into a 1 on 1 situation in the first place, all got ratings above 7

If this was real life the goalie would be man of match (as per Boaz Myhill) Tottenham v Hull who made save after save.

For the record, the MoM in my match went to one of my midfielders who's only contribution to the game was making 3 key passes, which wasn't even the most of those as one of my strikers made 6 as well as 3 sot from 3 attempts.

How are we (the players of the game) meant to base buying decisions etc around players when the ratings system is obviously so cack ??????

Simply shameful imho

My goalkeepers get very good ratings, perhaps even too good.

What's more, could you please delve into your wider vocabulary and find better adjectives with which to express your feelings, or not express them at all, as some users may find your lexis offensive.

My goalkeepers get very good ratings, perhaps even too good.

What's more, could you please delve into your wider vocabulary and find better adjectives with which to express your feelings, or not express them at all, as some users may find your lexis offensive.

Agreed, on both points

when my GK have nothing to do they are often rated under 7, they made no important saves or anything, so it seems pretty accurate. You wouldnt give a rating to someone who stayed on the bench the whole game or to someone who only played a few mins at the beginning or the end where they dont even get to touch the ball?

so why rate a GK over 7 for doing nothing?

when my GK have nothing to do they are often rated under 7, they made no important saves or anything, so it seems pretty accurate. You wouldnt give a rating to someone who stayed on the bench the whole game or to someone who only played a few mins at the beginning or the end where they dont even get to touch the ball?

so why rate a GK over 7 for doing nothing?

I wouldn't call making 6 1 on 1 saves as doing nothing, and only getting a 6.9

Agreed, on both points

im unsure what this contributes to the thread.in fact i see this a lot from your username where you bounce in and try to police a thread. its really not needed. assuming you all honed in on the word "cack" im not sure how that could realistically offend anyone, nor does it make his point any less valid. edit: admittedly you agree with his ontopic point, but its the agreeance with a point that could be ignored...

anyway back to the point at hand with regards to the poster at the start and his problems with goalkeepers and their ratings. i too have noticed this and i find that the goalkeepers in my team end up wit far too low a rating than they possibly deserve especially when i am winning a lot of games and they only have to do one or two things. the game interprets this as them having only contributed a little so they shouldnt get a high mark, but i feel that if they make only one vital save in the game, they should be respected and their rating should show as much.

I wouldn't call making 6 1 on 1 saves as doing nothing, and only getting a 6.9

Well it depends what else he did, doesn't it.

It could also be the case that its linked to the high number of "false" one-on-ones that are currently being created by some tactics and he didn't actually make six one-on-one saves.

im unsure what this contributes to the thread.in fact i see this a lot from your username where you bounce in and try to police a thread. its really not needed. assuming you all honed in on the word "cack" im not sure how that could realistically offend anyone, nor does it make his point any less valid. edit: admittedly you agree with his ontopic point, but its the agreeance with a point that could be ignored...

It's not policing a thread, it is not tolerating the kind of vulgar language that litters places like these. And it is not 'cack' that some would be offended by, it is the scatological word used in the title for this thread. That kind of language is not needed. As you saw, I read his thread and responded to it accordingly, showing that I too felt his point was valid, but merely made a side-comment on his expressing of it. From my point of view, this matter is closed, and I apologising for going off-subject on this thread, as I was simply discouraging the use of needless impoliteness.

I think the OP's point could be made better.

I think the moderating should be left to the moderators.

Closed until one of them reviews / to avoid further bickering.