After all these years still can't calculate ratings correctly.

Now you would think that after all these years, and all these editions, that SI could get something as simple as calculating ratings correctly. After all it is nothing to do with a ME etc, just a straightforward mathematical formula. Well, you'd be wrong.

On 10.2 they were in general on quite the conservative side.

And on 10.3 I notice they are more respectful of if a player has had a blinding game. For example a hattrick now virtually always gets into the mid 9's. Instead of the mid 8's.

However, just now one of my players got star man with an 8.0 simply for winning 6 crucial headers. However they were all on attacking corners and every one of his headers was wide of the goal, so he ended the match with 1 of 7 SOT. Plus only connected with 50% of passes, 50 of tackles and an assist. Now imo, that's NOT what I would call being the best man on the pitch, when others around him also made critical passes etc, and scored the only goal of the game.

Also one of the opposition defenders made only 3 of 17 headers (1 critical), 9 of 23 passes, 5, of 7 tackles (1 critical) and 10 interceptions to get a 6.4 rating. Given that a defenders job in ANY version of CM/FM has been winnning headers and making tackles. A 6.4 for the above stats seems WAY off the mark. Getting beaten on 14 headers means the guy is an extreme liability who is in need of an immediate subbing.

If one of OUR defenders in OUR teams got beaten on 14 headers we would have conceded 6 or 7.

Amazed that something apparently so simple and basic just seems to be SO flawed, year after year after year :thdn:

If you believe there to be any issues with player ratings for a match, please upload the match and post to our Bugs Forum, and we'll take a look at it. Cheers.

If you believe there to be any issues with player ratings for a match, please upload the match and post to our Bugs Forum, and we'll take a look at it. Cheers.

I would if I still had the match in question available. But I lost the next game and th4 started my save right from the beginning again. But any other's I will take note of your advice and gladly upload. Thx

I agree match ratings are a little on the bizzare side of things. I play 1 half and conceded 1 goal but 3-4 defenders have a rating of 5 something? In 10.2 that would mean i'm losing at least 4:0. The same goes for the attackers unless they score a goal. At half time 5 something, but i turned the match around and becouse of a goal he gets to 7-8, wasn't even that crucial

yeah the game should base ratings on his 60-70-80-90 minute peformance not just 2 seconds of magic

Edit Because my defender should be man of the match, judging by his overall 90 minute performance

I personally don't think a player who plays anything less than 20 mins should even warrant a rating, unless something unbelievable happens to turn the game on its head, eg score a hattrick in those 20 mins.

Would probably be difficult to code though, as it will still count as an appearance and drag his average down even further.

I personally don't think a player who plays anything less than 20 mins should even warrant a rating, unless something unbelievable happens to turn the game on its head, eg score a hattrick in those 20 mins.

Would probably be difficult to code though, as it will still count as an appearance and drag his average down even further.

Erm... If you bring a sub on after 70 mins or so, he doesn't get a rating.

The point is the rating system became too harsh in 10.3 methinks.

The point is the rating system became too harsh in 10.3 methinks.

I think it's better. A poor game shows as poor, a good game shows as good. Why shouldn't a hat trick in league play get you into the 9s? What would warrant that, if not 3 goals?

Why have a 10 point scale if you only use a point and a half of it for nearly every single player in every single match?

I personally don't think a player who plays anything less than 20 mins should even warrant a rating, unless something unbelievable happens to turn the game on its head, eg score a hattrick in those 20 mins.

Would probably be difficult to code though, as it will still count as an appearance and drag his average down even further.

Yes, very. A player might not do something noticable (if you get what I mean) but his general play over the 90 minutes could win him man of the match.

Example: In a IRL match Rooney scored a hat-trick but Darren Fletcher won the man of the match award for his work rate

I agree might be better this way I'm not used to it yet. HOWEVER this gives us the following problem - a player actually plays ok (not brilliant but ok) and in 10.2 would get a 6.7-7.0 (the average low mark for a player doing nothing while you still won the game).

But with 10.3 the game will give him 5 something, which immediately enables you to discipline him, and don't know how this will affect his morale in the long run.

I agree might be better this way I'm not used to it yet. HOWEVER this gives us the following problem - a player actually plays ok (not brilliant but ok) and in 10.2 would get a 6.7-7.0 (the average low mark for a player doing nothing while you still won the game).

But with 10.3 the game will give him 5 something, which immediately enables you to discipline him, and don't know how this will affect his morale in the long run.

No matter what the version, disciplining players for poor performance NEVER gets you anywhere, his form doesn't improve, on the contrary, he plays even worse because he feels hard done by.

Should only ever fine for violent behaviour and the like.

IRL have YOU ever heard of a professional player ANYWHERE being given a 2 weeks fine for having a bad game ???

I just warn them and they usually accept the warning? 1 out of 10 times someone would declare unfair treatment.

Example: In a IRL match Rooney scored a hat-trick but Darren Fletcher won the man of the match award for his work rate

Which game was that? :O

Erm... If you bring a sub on after 70 mins or so, he doesn't get a rating.

What I mean is that IRL, unless it is a forced sub due to injury. That subs only tend to come on for winning teams AFTER the match has been effectively won, and to waste time off the clock. Or the losing team tries to change things around by bringing off someone who is having an absolute nightmare, but that rarely happens before half time.

Also, if it is a drawing game, either side could decide to sub to waste time, or just to try that little bit of something against tired legs with maybe 10-15 mins left.

Generally speaking, a sub is by definition, someone who isn't good enough for the 1st 11. Therefore managers don't tend to use them to really try and bring a habbit out of the rat.

Which game was that? :O

It was a while back (don't remember exactly).... Rooney scored 2 or 3 goals (sure it was 3) but Fetcher got the man of the match award because he was "all over the park"

Which game was that? :O

I once remember Ian Rush scoring at least 3 but Kenny Dalglish getting MOM IRL for scoring 1 and setting up all the others and generally running the opposition senseless, but they both played the full game.

It was a while back (don't remember exactly).... Rooney scored 2 or 3 goals (sure it was 3) but Fetcher got the man of the match award because he was "all over the park"

There was no such game.

Rooney scored against Arsenal at OT, got the MoM award but told the press that he'd be giving Fletch the champagne as he was clearly the best player on the park.

Fletch was named MoM in the citeh game, where he scored 2 headers.

Which game was that? :O

i was this game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5PvaP4cHaU

I think rooney scored 3

Not sure if he officially got the man of the match though (I think he did)

Scholes, Carrick and Rooney scored the goals in that game. So only 1 for Wayne.

Scholes, Carrick and Rooney scored the goals in that game. So only 1 for Wayne.

Whatever (didn't watch the game). Anyway, I'm sure Fletch got the man of the match award.