Match Ratings don't make sense...

It's Half Time, and I substitute one player who has a slight injury. His H/T rating was 6.6.

Yet at Full Time, his rating went up to 6.9, despite not playing in the second half.. I don't get how?

I did wonder this the other day, as to what the rating is relative to. Is a 10 the very best that that individual could do on any given day, or is it just that he was that much better than his teammates and/or opposition that day?

Going from a 6.6 to a 6.9 would seem to suggest that everyone else did slightly worse in the second half, making his performance (and therefore rating) relative to the rest of his team look a bit better.

But I am just guessing.

I had something much more noticeable... A player who had played badly in the first half got a 5.6 but, as I got to the half-time team talk, I clicked "ask assistant" and his rating went up to 6.6.

I subbed a player at half time with a 5.3 rating, at the start of the second half he was at 6.5.

I think the ratings don't quite go all the way up to half time including injury time, numerous times I have seen one of my players not play very well for the first half but score in say the 43rd minute, his rating will still be 5.9 or something - but straight after half time his rating will go up to include the goal.....

Not exactly sure how/why it is like this but it does seem to be

Ratings shown at half time aren't updated to include what is happening right before half time, just as the ratings aren't updated after a score until the kickoff and anything highlightable has happened. You have to have given the software some reason to update the rating.

Ratings shown at half time aren't updated to include what is happening right before half time, just as the ratings aren't updated after a score until the kickoff and anything highlightable has happened. You have to have given the software some reason to update the rating.

What like....a goal scored perhaps? lol

Ratings shown at half time aren't updated to include what is happening right before half time, just as the ratings aren't updated after a score until the kickoff and anything highlightable has happened. You have to have given the software some reason to update the rating.

So the HT Rating is actually the 42 and half minute rating?

Other ratings issues it would be nice to have fixed as well:

-scoring an easy tap-in raises a rating too much, even if the player has had an otherwise shocking game

-events that have happened recently affect the ratings too much - i.e. if two players have identical games, but one scores in the first minute and the other scores in the last minute, the one that scored in the last minute would have a far higher rating.

-substitutes rated rather lowly even if they are have played solidly since they came on (i.e. 6.5 or 6.6 when performance is on a level with those playing from the start who get maybe 6.8 or 6.9)

-central midfielders and DMs find it too difficult to get a good rating. Wingers, CBs and GK all find it too easy.

-all players: winning headers gives too big an influence on rating

-generally too fast fluctuation in rating - i.e. a player going from 5.5 to 7.2 or vice versa in 10 minutes (even without scoring or assisting).

-substitutes rated rather lowly even if they are have played solidly since they came on (i.e. 6.5 or 6.6 when performance is on a level with those playing from the start who get maybe 6.8 or 6.9)

-central midfielders and DMs find it too difficult to get a good rating. Wingers, CBs and GK all find it too easy.

I have to strongly disagree with these - I would expect fresh legs coming on to have more of an impact than those who started the game, hence, if they're just as solid as those who started then they haven't done as well. I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, but hopefully someone more eloquent with words can tweak it.

I'm the other way round - it must depend on formations. I frequently see CB's in the 5's despite keeping a clean sheet, while I had a CM who often got into the 8's regardlesss of whether he scored, assisted, or even got his shots on target. I think the number of runs had an impact though.

I have to strongly disagree with these - I would expect fresh legs coming on to have more of an impact than those who started the game, hence, if they're just as solid as those who started then they haven't done as well. I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, but hopefully someone more eloquent with words can tweak it.

I understand what you're trying to say with this, but I really don't think it should affect ratings. I think they should be absolute rather than relative to some sort of expectation.

Your other point I can maybe agree with, maybe I just play in a style that sees my CBs being very effective and my CMs less so.