It's so annoying that 10.3 requires a CB to be tall

10.3 ME makes it impossible for a short CB to get good match ratings. No matter how you play him, defender, stopper, cover, he will have to deal with a lot of headers, and CB's with jumping attribute less than 14-15 always have a hard time winning those headers.

When I have a short CB with excellent marking and tackling attributes I just retrain him as a fullback. That's the only solution.

Little annoying things like this in the ME prevent me from totally enjoying FM2010.

Because a player with low jumping in real life won't win headers against someone with high jumping surely?

"You can't train 1.90 metres"

Cannavaro, Puyol are certainly not 190cm tall. They are not even 180cm tall. But they are both world class stoppers, aren't they?

Cannavaro, Puyol are certainly not 190cm tall. They are not even 180cm tall. But they are both world class stoppers, aren't they?

But would they beat a player who can reach 2.1m in the air or so with a header? No. Players will win headers still. Watch the match properly and look at the stats to see how many headers they win.

Because a player with low jumping in real life won't win headers against someone with high jumping surely?

I find I play grand with a 6'3" DC with 16 heading and 17 jumping and a 5'10" DC with 18 heading and 7 jumping. It's how you use your players that counts.

Does it? I always said it should be that way anyway. I always use to search for a defender to be tall until I learnt on the forums it makes no difference. That might explain a few things..

I'm playing as Everton and have Heitinga (180cm) and Jagielka (181cm) at the back and they are amazing together. Ok they are no midgets but are a short cenrtre back pairing. Maybe there is a problem but in 2 seasons my trophy cabinet would suggest otherwise.

Height doesn't matter one bit in FM, it's purely cosmetic. Jumping is the attribute related to height though.

I I am pretty sure that I read that height counted for nothing on these forums and a player who is 5 foot 3 with jumping 20 and heading 20 would beat a 6 foot 6 player with 18 jumping and 18 heading.

I'm playing as Everton and have Heitinga (180cm) and Jagielka (181cm) at the back and they are amazing together. Ok they are no midgets but are a short cenrtre back pairing. Maybe there is a problem but in 2 seasons my trophy cabinet would suggest otherwise.

What are their jumping attributes though? Height is in a way implemented in the jumping attribute and that's what really counts. Your 180cm CB with 16 jumping is just as good as your 195cm CB with 16 jumping.

Because a player with low jumping in real life won't win headers against someone with high jumping surely?

I think the OP's point is that there's too much weight put on %age of headers won by DCs, when it comes to match ratings.

What are their jumping attributes though? Height is in a way implemented in the jumping attribute and that's what really counts. Your 180cm CB with 16 jumping is just as good as your 195cm CB with 16 jumping.

Hmmm, I didn't realise that. I thought the stats were finnaly made independant a couple of games ago.

On the other hand, if he's saying that it's unfair that players with low jumping attributes lose lots of headers to players with high jumping attributes, then he's gone mad

Height doesn't matter one bit in FM, it's purely cosmetic. Jumping is the attribute related to height though.

Yes, but like I said, it is implemented in jumping. That's why most of the time the taller players have higher jumping attribute.

Jumping in FM = Height + vertical leap

(can't believe I have to re-explain this each time I'm making a comment in a thread related to jumping attribute )

My point is, there are CB's in real life who are not good in the air (because of their lack of height and/or lack of leaping ability) but they are very good at other things like tackling, marking, anticipation, decisions, etc., which makes them still very good CB's. In FM it is impossible. A CB with 18 jumping but 10-12 in marking, tackling, anticipation, etc. is better than a CB with 12 jumping and 20's at marking and tackling, etc. And that's just wrong, and annoying.

I think the OP's point is that there's too much weight put on %age of headers won by DCs, when it comes to match ratings.

Yes, yes, thank you

Height isn't implemented in jumping. It's the jumping stat and nothing else. The jumping stat and height are usually correlated, but that's different.

But I do think you have a point that the match ratings for DCs who lose a fair few headers are overly harsh.

On the other hand, if he's saying that it's unfair that players with low jumping attributes lose lots of headers to players with high jumping attributes, then he's gone mad

No, I'm definitely not saying that

It's the absolute importance of headers won for a CB when it comes to match rating, that's what's bothering me bc this makes it impossible to have a short but otherwise perfect CB to perform well in 10.3 ME.

Height isn't implemented in jumping. It's the jumping stat and nothing else. The jumping stat and height are usually correlated, but that's different.

But I do think you have a point that the match ratings for DCs who lose a fair few headers are overly harsh.

Yes, it is. Those two being correlated means that it is implemented (that's why I said "implemented, in a way" Taller players are a lot more likely to have higher jumping attribute. That's what I mean by "implemented". But yes, "correlated" is a better word to use though, I guess.

No, I'm definitely not saying that

It's the absolute importance of headers won for a CB when it comes to match rating, that's what's bothering me bc this makes it impossible to have a short but otherwise perfect CB to perform well in 10.3 ME.

But surely, the ME recognises you have a short DC and will try to exploit that???

What the OP is saying is that too much emphasis is being put on the jumping ability of cb's and I tend to agree with him. Yes jumping and heading is very important but in FM to a large degree if your cb's jumping attribute is lesss than 15 for arguements sake then the player will be worthless becasue of this one attribute which is overweighted in the ME just like pace and acceleration which is vastly overrated in FM. So basically it boils down to the fact that a CB has to be at least 6''2 to be effective becasue any shorter than that and his jumping will be below a certain number.

Cannavaro, Puyol are certainly not 190cm tall. They are not even 180cm tall. But they are both world class stoppers, aren't they?

I was thinking the same thing when i read the opening post.

What the OP is saying is that too much emphasis is being put on the jumping ability of cb's and I tend to agree with him. Yes jumping and heading is very important but in FM to a large degree if your cb's jumping attribute is lesss than 15 for arguements sake then the player will be worthless becasue of this one attribute which is overweighted in the ME just like pace and acceleration which is vastly overrated in FM. So basically it boils down to the fact that a CB has to be at least 6''2 to be effective becasue any shorter than that and his jumping will be below a certain number.

This

The ME is restricting us from having flexibility when we chose where to play our players. A center back HAS TO HAVE a high jumping attribute, a winger HAS TO BE fast, etc. Like nev147 says, if a winger has 16+ for pace and acceleration he will be good no matter how low his other attributes are. That's why my AM L is rated only 1.5* by my coaches but he is the 3rd in match ratings in my team, because he is kicking .ss on the wing just because he is fast. Pace and acceleration are definitely overrated too in ME, just like jumping is overrated for CB's.

It's important to distinguish between the Match Engine and the Player Ratings.

I think DCs with low jumping do alright in the ME - sure they lose a fair share of headers against bigger opposition forwards, some important, some not so important, but that's similar to real life. They can still play very well and make important interceptions, tackles, etc.

The problem is, even if they do play well, they still get a fairly low Player Rating because of the headers they've lost, and with that comes lower morale and all the other negative side-effects.

It's important to distinguish between the Match Engine and the Player Ratings.

I think DCs with low jumping do alright in the ME - sure they lose a fair share of headers against bigger opposition forwards, some important, some not so important, but that's similar to real life. They can still play very well and make important interceptions, tackles, etc.

The problem is, even if they do play well, they still get a fairly low Player Rating because of the headers they've lost, and with that comes lower morale and all the other negative side-effects.

True. You can still get good results by having a short but otherwise excellent CB in your lineup, however his match rating will be poor. So the problem is more like the match rating not really reflecting how well he played. It puts too much emphasis on how many headers he has won.

I don't know about you, but this is really annoying for me.

I have a central defender with a jumping attribute of 11 and he plays absolutely well. Just make sure to check the opposition's strikers and have your short defender mark a short forward. Instruct him to stay back at corners to avoid some more lost headers.

Anyway, CM 03/04 was ever worse. This problem not only affected defenders but forwards as well. They also had terrible ratings when losing like 15 headers a game.

It's important to distinguish between the Match Engine and the Player Ratings.

I think DCs with low jumping do alright in the ME - sure they lose a fair share of headers against bigger opposition forwards, some important, some not so important, but that's similar to real life. They can still play very well and make important interceptions, tackles, etc.

The problem is, even if they do play well, they still get a fairly low Player Rating because of the headers they've lost, and with that comes lower morale and all the other negative side-effects.

Very true, but then a Centreback that can't jump contesting heaps of headers is a tactical issue, and deserves to be marked low on ratings.

I prefer to flank my "Cover" pacey and intelligent Centreback with an aerially dominant Centreback and an aerially dominant Fullback, and if possible I will find myself a DM that is also good in the air.

Accepting the concession of an Aerial battle in a certain zone because the Centreback in that area has low jumping is not good tactics.

Anticipation can make up for poor jumping, Strength too. Not to mention dirtiness.

I don't think it is entireally fair to blame the match rating calculations. Your rubbish centreback in a certain context is performing badly. That is completely fair. Use your players better.

I prefer to flank my "Cover" pacey and intelligent Centreback with an aerially dominant Centreback and an aerially dominant Fullback, and if possible I will find myself a DM that is also good in the air.

So you use your short, pacey CB in "cover" role? How is his average rating compared to your tall CB then?

I don't think the issue is that centre backs are marked down for losing headers per say. I think it's deeper than that.

When a player wins a header, his average rating goes up, and rightly so. He wins 5 headers, his average rating has potentially gone up 5 points (a "point" being 0.1 of a rating). With it, his morale shoots up, and his motivation may well improve too. Suddenly, from winning those 5 headers, his rating has improved, which leads to better performances, his morale has improved, which leads to better performances, and his motivation has improved, which leads to better performances. He then starts to be able, thanks to morale/motivation/form, to make trickier tackles, outrun players, and win even more headers. That improves his rating...

I don't think the issue is that centre backs are marked down for losing headers per say. I think it's deeper than that.

When a player wins a header, his average rating goes up, and rightly so. He wins 5 headers, his average rating has potentially gone up 5 points (a "point" being 0.1 of a rating). With it, his morale shoots up, and his motivation may well improve too. Suddenly, from winning those 5 headers, his rating has improved, which leads to better performances, his morale has improved, which leads to better performances, and his motivation has improved, which leads to better performances. He then starts to be able, thanks to morale/motivation/form, to make trickier tackles, outrun players, and win even more headers. That improves his rating...

Is there actually something wrong with that?

Suppose you win five consecutive headers against some lad in your pub league. That's not lose five consecutive ground tackles. Are you going to think you have the beating of this lad? Are you going to go crunching into tackles when the ball is on the deck? Are you going to puff your chest out and play like a pro?

I don't see the problem here. The opponent shouldn't be pumping the ball into the air, and if you keep winning your battles you are going to get confident.

Seems absolutely spot on to me. You win all your headers and don't get challenged on the ground, top marks son.

SFraser, can you please post your CB's average ratings when you get a chance? I'm just curious, bc in my game no matter how I use a CB with low jumping, he gets low rating. You talk like with the way you use them short CB's can get good ratings too.

I agree with the OP. The way the match ratings are done still nees work, although it has improved a lot from previous FM's. This thread has been de-railed somewhat by talking about the height/jumping stat, but its really about the way match ratings are made.

Every version of FM though, or every patch, seems to have a problem with the way some players are rated. On FM09, 1st patch it was MC's, but I found a way round that to make sure the MCa would be making all the key passes. 2nd/3rd patch it was AMC's, but my workaround was to make sure the AMC was the playmaker with RWB, and TTB often.

IRL if teams are facing giant FC's like crouch, they would set up tactically so that they are winning a high % of the '2nd ball' from flickons and knockdowns. Someone like Cannavaro would be sweeping up all the attacks after the header has come down, and keeping the defensive line high, so none of those headers is an attempt on goal or a threatening flick on. In FM this should be replicated by having a higher weighting for (key) interceptions.

At the end of last season, a Sky Sports statistic stated that Kolo Toure only won 56% of aerial challenges. In FM if he did that, he would have a avg. rating in the low 6's for the season! He clearly wasn't that bad Arsenal, and they were hardly dominated by direct long ball tactcs.

It's not really that the game requires a CB to have good jumping.

It's more that you have to put so much more effort into getting a CB with low jumping to perform. You can buy two decent CBs with 18+ Jumping and set them on Defend and see them average around 7 over a season even if your conceeding 60 or 70 goals a season as I was when I won promotion from the Championship. As SFraser said you have to coordinate your entire back line and defensive midfield players to enable a lower jumping CB to play well. Even then an off day for one of the other defensive players will drag down his rating. There is just a lot more fiddling needed to set things up.

It's so annoying that real life requires a CB to be tall

well, thats the direction that the modern game is going at least

I agree with the OP. The way the match ratings are done still nees work, although it has improved a lot from previous FM's. This thread has been de-railed somewhat by talking about the height/jumping stat, but its really about the way match ratings are made.

Every version of FM though, or every patch, seems to have a problem with the way some players are rated. On FM09, 1st patch it was MC's, but I found a way round that to make sure the MCa would be making all the key passes. 2nd/3rd patch it was AMC's, but my workaround was to make sure the AMC was the playmaker with RWB, and TTB often.

IRL if teams are facing giant FC's like crouch, they would set up tactically so that they are winning a high % of the '2nd ball' from flickons and knockdowns. Someone like Cannavaro would be sweeping up all the attacks after the header has come down, and keeping the defensive line high, so none of those headers is an attempt on goal or a threatening flick on. In FM this should be replicated by having a higher weighting for (key) interceptions.

At the end of last season, a Sky Sports statistic stated that Kolo Toure only won 56% of aerial challenges. In FM if he did that, he would have a avg. rating in the low 6's for the season! He clearly wasn't that bad Arsenal, and they were hardly dominated by direct long ball tactcs.

Spot on

It's so annoying that real life requires a CB to be tall

well, thats the direction that the modern game is going at least

Well that may be the case in the higher echelons but it certainly isn't at a lower level.

I watch Rushden and Diamonds in the BSP. We have reached the playoffs as a result of a run which has seen us lose only 2 games, both to very dubious late penalties, since Christmas. One of the reasons for this has been the immense solidity of our two DCs, neither of whom is a giant by any manner of means.

As a general point, I'm convinced that the game rates physicality too highly and does not value skill enough. That explains why assmen prefer fast players to clever ones and why players who have little else to offer but pace are rated highly.

It's particularly glaring in the lower leagues, where a striker with (say) pace 14, acceleration 15, finishing 3, technique 3 and composure 4 will be highly recommended for signing.

Well that may be the case in the higher echelons but it certainly isn't at a lower level.

I watch Rushden and Diamonds in the BSP. We have reached the playoffs as a result of a run which has seen us lose only 2 games, both to very dubious late penalties, since Christmas. One of the reasons for this has been the immense solidity of our two DCs, neither of whom is a giant by any manner of means.

As a general point, I'm convinced that the game rates physicality too highly and does not value skill enough. That explains why assmen prefer fast players to clever ones and why players who have little else to offer but pace are rated highly.

It's particularly glaring in the lower leagues, where a striker with (say) pace 14, acceleration 15, finishing 3, technique 3 and composure 4 will be highly recommended for signing.

Maybe it's not that far off then? In the lower leagues, being a forward who is very fast but not gifted technically might allow you the chance to breeze past the opposition backline constantly. Toward the top level, the defenders and manager will be far more tactically adept, negating some of the benefits of your physicality. In my experience, yes, in lower leagues assmen and scouts rate overly physical players higher than overly technical, but in the top end this is certainly not the case.

Maybe it's not that far off then? In the lower leagues, being a forward who is very fast but not gifted technically might allow you the chance to breeze past the opposition backline constantly. Toward the top level, the defenders and manager will be far more tactically adept, negating some of the benefits of your physicality. In my experience, yes, in lower leagues assmen and scouts rate overly physical players higher than overly technical, but in the top end this is certainly not the case.

Yep, he will breeze past the back line and blaze it over the bar from 6 metres out......

Is there actually something wrong with that?

Suppose you win five consecutive headers against some lad in your pub league. That's not lose five consecutive ground tackles. Are you going to think you have the beating of this lad? Are you going to go crunching into tackles when the ball is on the deck? Are you going to puff your chest out and play like a pro?

I don't see the problem here. The opponent shouldn't be pumping the ball into the air, and if you keep winning your battles you are going to get confident.

Seems absolutely spot on to me. You win all your headers and don't get challenged on the ground, top marks son.

Not necessarily. Sure, I'll be more confident, but if he does run past me once (and given that description, I think it's likely he will), all those headers will be undone. I'll be confident of winning the next header, but I won't be looking forward to the next time he runs at me.

The problem is that the effect of the extra confidence is great exaggerated, and with it, the effect of better physical attributes.

Not necessarily. Sure, I'll be more confident, but if he does run past me once (and given that description, I think it's likely he will), all those headers will be undone. I'll be confident of winning the next header, but I won't be looking forward to the next time he runs at me.

The problem is that the effect of the extra confidence is great exaggerated, and with it, the effect of better physical attributes.

And what of the effects of "mistake lead to goal"? Is this also overpowered in the negative context?

Surely it is the managers job to deal with these situations and tactical issues? Allowing yourself to be dominated in the air in key/important/regular positions when the ball is regularly up in the air is simply not good football.

From my perspective it looks like alot of people want ratings tweaks to hide fundamental tactical flaws, rather than accepting the fact that they are seriously weak and deficient in certain areas and with that comes low ratings/lowered motivation.

I don't agree that low ratings/low motivation or high ratings/high motivation is a flawed consequence of decent and sound tactics. In my opinion these things are the logical consequence of real weakness and failure.

If the ball keeps getting lumped up to Defoe or Torres or Rooney, they are going to react very badly. Terry, Vidic, Dawson are going to go from strength to strength against this attack. If the manager actually manages to pull the ball down onto the deck, everything changes.

You are blaming the match ratings/motivation for pointing out a severe and significant tactical failure in your own game.

SFraser, you are taking the simple fact in my op and making it very complicated.

1- In real life there are many succesfull short CB's, like Puyol and Cannavaro.

2- In FM2010-10.3 (in 10.2 this was less of an issue) if I play with flat 4 defence, and have a short CB, that guy always gets a low rating due to lost headers. You are saying that with better tactics it is possible to overcome this guy's lack of jumping. I'm asking you how and you're not really answering. If you will show me a defensive formation that will get my short CB's average rating significantly higher I will be convinced that it is my tactics, I will admit I don't know how to use a short CB in the game. If you can't show me that, it's a waste of time to debate about whether the rating system in ME is nonsense or not. Instead of answering my question you're still talking about having Defoe in your team and making the mistake of playing high balls to him while the opposition has Terry and Vidic in defense. Everybody knows that would be a mistake, and nobody is talking about that here. The question here is: You have a short but otherwise great CB. The opposition in FM will play high balls to their strikers (or maybe not, whatever). Right now I don't know how to make my short CB perform well. There is a way in real life. Is there a way in FM? If there is no way (which is my argument), that needs to be changed. Simple as that.

Oh, almost forgot. If there is a way, then AI is definitely not aware of that, which you will see just by browsing all the teams in your division and compare their CB's average ratings against each other. The ones with low jumping always have significantly lower average ratings than their CB partners.

Is there a better way in game to make your short CB 'sweep up' 2nd balls, and have your taller CB, go to meet the ball for all aerial challenges ? I only really have a problem when the opposition plays with 2 aerially strong forwards.

SFraser, you are taking the simple fact in my op and making it very complicated.

1- In real life there are many succesfull short CB's, like Puyol and Cannavaro.

2- In FM2010-10.3 (in 10.2 this was less of an issue) if I play with flat 4 defence, and have a short CB, that guy always gets a low rating due to lost headers. You are saying that with better tactics it is possible to overcome this guy's lack of jumping. I'm asking you how and you're not really answering. If you will show me a defensive formation that will get my short CB's average rating significantly higher I will be convinced that it is my tactics, I will admit I don't know how to use a short CB in the game. If you can't show me that, it's a waste of time to debate about whether the rating system in ME is nonsense or not. Instead of answering my question you're still talking about having Defoe in your team and making the mistake of playing high balls to him while the opposition has Terry and Vidic in defense. Everybody knows that would be a mistake, and nobody is talking about that here. The question here is: You have a short but otherwise great CB. The opposition in FM will play high balls to their strikers (or maybe not, whatever). Right now I don't know how to make my short CB perform well. There is a way in real life. Is there a way in FM? If there is no way (which is my argument), that needs to be changed. Simple as that.

The way I do it in FM, which depends entireally upon my own team, is first and foremost to flank my short CB with players that aggressively attack the ball while using the short CB as cover. There is a lot more tactical detail to this than simply winning headers, as flanking a short but intelligent cover defender with an aerially dominant/aggressive ball winning centreback and aerially dominant/aggressive ball winning fullback also provides key aspects of cover on the Centrebacks outside channel, whether that is winning headers from long balls, winning headers from crosses aimed behind the cover CB, or aggressively pressing the ball in the channels when the CB moves into a deeper cover position.

Consider for example the back four of Evra - Vidic - Ferdinand - Brown. As Evra attacks and bombs up the left wing, the remaining three defenders become two aggressive, ball winning, zonal marking, hard tackling Centrebacks supported and Covered by Ferdinand as a de facto sweeper. This is very much like the principles of Zona Mista Catennacio, and you could argue a direct tactical copy from that system.

The tactical defensive benefits are clearly aggressive pressing either side of a sweeper, but they are also aggressive control of the flanks / instant attempt to win the ball down the flanks backed up by a pacey sweeper, and also aerial dominance at each post when facing crosses with again an agile sweeper, or aggressive defence of each channel covered by a sweeper.

This is a significantly potent defensive system. It is not only the basis of some forms of Catenaccio from the era Catenaccio was prevailent, but it is also the same basis of modern day back four systems with the near universal tendency for an aggressive attacking leftback, although some sides opt for two covering players either side of the aggressive ball winner. The Manchester United side that broke the record for consecutive games without conceding in the EPL, and broke the record for consecutive undefeated games in the European Cup, employed this basic system of a back four transitioning into a back three of Channel Stoppers plus Sweeper plus attacking Left Wingback.

From this position I personally would then attempt to ensure two things in FM to solve the header problem:

1: An aerially dominant presence in the centre of midfield.

2: An aerially dominant presence upfront dropping into AMC/central positions.

For issue number 1, if the player is a DM and has the relevant abilities for defence, then he can quite easilly be utilised A: as a sweeper behind the midfield in the same basic manner as the defensive structure, but also B: as an additional Centreback to provide additional cover for the "Channel Winners" and the defensive/cover problems caused by their failure to win the channel battle. Such a player could not only sit infront of the defacto back three, but slot into the Centre of Defence as a secondary sweeper whenever the wider defensive unit was penetrated.

Though in all honesty I think the real problem is the jumping ability of the forward player, no doubt exacerbated by the tendency of most FM players to immediately try and sign Sergio Aguero, or some equally pathetic high reputation, zero aerial threat, forward/AMC player.

Though in all honesty I think the real problem is the jumping ability of the forward player, no doubt exacerbated by the tendency of most FM players to immediately try and sign Sergio Aguero, or some equally pathetic high reputation, zero aerial threat, forward/AMC player.

I bought Edin Dzeko to be my main striker in 4-2-3-1 formation with inside forwards just so he can pose an aerial threat.And what happens?He scores 2 goals with a header and 25 with his feet even though he is wining almost every header inside and outside the box but either he misses the goal when he is inside the box or flicks the ball back to the opposition defense outside the box even though my inside forwards and AMC move into open space.

So does height actually factor into jumping in the ME this year or is this simply about ratings?

So does height actually factor into jumping in the ME this year or is this simply about ratings?

Height + leap off the ground = jumping attribute as has been said already but it takes more than that to win a header.

Height is also in the match engine this year - When a ball is in the air height is used to determine if the player needs to jump to reach it. Winning the ball without jumping is easier than having to time a jump.

I bought Edin Dzeko to be my main striker in 4-2-3-1 formation with inside forwards just so he can pose an aerial threat.And what happens?He scores 2 goals with a header and 25 with his feet even though he is wining almost every header inside and outside the box but either he misses the goal when he is inside the box or flicks the ball back to the opposition defense outside the box even though my inside forwards and AMC move into open space.

That's quite obviously an entireally different issue altogether, and the fact you use Inside Forwards with Edin Dzeko is a pretty big clue.

I feel that SFraser is still over complicating.

Let me return to the real life situation which I mentioned, where Rushden have two relatively short DCs. In general, our team is not over-endowed with height and, as regards the defence, our DL is also pretty short, although our DR is somewhat taller. We have John Terry's brother as a deep lying midfielder just in front of the back 4 and he's no giant either.

I think it's reasonable to suggest that, at BSP level, you are more likely to get long, high balls pumped vaguely in the direction of the box against you than you would be in the Premiership, where, on the whole, the players' greater skill means less emphasis on long ball tactics. You'd therefore expect the DCs' relative lack of height to be more of a handicap for us, playing where we do, than for a club at higher level. It simply doesn't work that way in practice. The shorter of these two relatively short DCs has probably had more MoM awards than anyone else in the squad, and that suggests to me that his rating in FM would be pretty high, rather than low.

I tend to agree with the OP, that there seems to be something wrong with the ratings. There always have been problems in previous editions of FM, as deejay10 so rightly points out, and I can't help feeling that this is simply another example.

That's quite obviously an entireally different issue altogether, and the fact you use Inside Forwards with Edin Dzeko is a pretty big clue.

I play with wing backs with crossing to often so the amount of crosses in not the problem.