SI : please fix the rating

its so frustrating to see soooo many 6.7s this new rating makes very hard for us to understand whos playing well and whos playing bad...

i hadve seen more than once players having terrible games and getting a 6.1 or 6.2... i think the old rating system was sooo much more accurate to understand the real effectiviness of their players.

so please SI do fix it!

thanks

6.7 is the generic rating for a normal day (not doing a lot)

ie... a striker who hits his shots on target but without success might end up with a 6.7-7.0 by the end of the game - did enough to score, but not quite on form

tbh, i didn't see that many 6.7s when i was managing, granted i was blowing most teams out of the water when i played them (vs Man 4-0 at home)

The old system seemed to produce similar 'average' ratings across the season - players used to get 6/8/5/9/7/7/4/10 etc which meaned they averaged about 6.5. Now they get 6.1/6.2/6.1/6.5/6.8/7.1/6.2/5.9/6.4 and again average about 6.5. The problem is, and I totally agree with the OP - this is incredibly hard to differentiate between players who have played 'well' and those who haved played 'average'.

In my team talks I used to tell any player who got above 8.5 that they had played 'sensationally' - now, if I go by that system I would only praise 1 player every other game! I havent a clue what determines a 'good' performance anymore. My keeper made 15 saves and got a 7.2. Was that a good performace? average? exceptional? If I praise him for playing well will he tell me that 'he doesnt need to do much to get praise'?

Why does it make an iota of difference? The issue is, as always, the standard deviation. If the standard deviation is 2, then you get excited about an 8, and upset about a 4. If the standard deviation is .5, you get excited about a 7.2 and unhappy with a 6.2. It doesn't take long to figure out what sort of range to expect from players in a game.

But, as you said, it doesnt make any difference - why make it more difficult for the players to interpret the results.

You have to agree that if you are looking at a list of numbers that are all 6.x then it is much more difficult to make quick decisions on how well a player is playing compared to looking at a list that runs from 5 to 9. Its about ease of use. With the current rating system they would be better to make <4 = 1, 4.5=2, 5=3, 5.5=4, 6=5, 6.4 =6, 6.8=7, 7= 8, 7.5=9 and >8 = 10 - it would make no 'real' difference, but as I said, it would visually make the managers job easier.

I look at it like this.

Less than 6 = Scandalous. I usually give a 2 week fine out of frustration as it usually means I've lost if someone plays like this.

6-6.4 = poor performance

6.5-6.9 = Bit ordinary but not too bad

7-7.5 = Good solid game

7.5-7.9 = Played very well

8-9 = Top performance

9+ = Outstanding

You have made my point nicely for me - SI have given us a scale of 1-10 (does it go below 1? Im not sure). But, the problem is that 95% of the time they only really use 5 of those scores (5-9) and of those 5 scores over 50% of them are 6s.

It is a standard bell curve and human beings dont work on standard bell curves, we like differentiation between the numbers.

I like the Bell Curve. More realsitic.

Most performances are between 6.5 -7.5

Only problem is they are too generous with bad performances. You never ever seen a rating of less than 3. But other than that it is OK

Well you never see a rating below 3 because the starting middle point seems to be somewhere around 6.5 (meaning that the top of 10 is only 3.5 away, and the lowest of 3.5 under is, suprise suprise, 3)

Personally, I dont mind the bell curve, but I would much prefer a flatter bell curve where 'average' performances start at 5 and end at 7 with poor performances below 5 and good performances above 7. Its more how the ratings used to be. It means you use more of the range and it means that you can tell 'bad' average players appart from 'good' average players as one will average 5.5 and the other 6.5, whereas now it appears to be 6.5 and 6.6 which is such a small difference it could be entirely down to one exceptional performance, rather than generally better.

I'm not enjoying the match ratings system this year, I've had Nilmar score 30 odd goals in 42 games and he finished the season with less than a 7 average. Bit poor and unrealistic in my view. Winning the league with Villarreal first season, yet only 1 player finishing with a rating above 7.00 for the season. Really poor and its not game breaking but it is ruining my enjoyment of the game right now.

The way the system is now is fine as far as the numbers go.

They do however need to make cards and fouls subtract from the rating... I'm not totally sure fouls don't, they don't seem to... but I'm positive cards don't affect ratings as I've seen my players get straight red cards and it not affect their rating.

As for 4 being bad or 6.2 being bad, it doesn't matter. You have to learn the ranges either way and once you have learned them it's completely pointless what the number is as long as you understand it's good or bad.

wtf are you talking about?

Virtually every player in my team gets good ratings, especially if we win comfortably. Last 3 games (ave not inc subs)

2-0 away from home, GK: 6.9 DR: 7.3 DC: 8.4 (mom) DC: 6.9 DL: 7.3 MC: 6.8 MC: 6.9 AMR : 6.9 AML: 7.5 ST: 6.3 ST: 7.8 (1 goal) SUBS: 6.9 and 6.8 (74th/71st minutes) ave: 6.55

5-1 away from home, GK: 6.8 DR: 7.4 DC: 7.6 DC: 7.5 DL: 8.6 MC: 7.2 MC: 7.2 AMR : 6.8 AML: 9.3 (1 goal) ST: 9.6 (hat-trick)(mom) ST: 7.4 SUBS: 6.7 and 6.7 (69th minute both) ave: 7.76

4-1 home, GK: 6.9 DR: 7.6 DC: 7.3 DC: 6.9 (inj 45) DL: 7.2 MC: 7.6 MC: 7.1 AMR : 8.8 (2 goals) AML: 6.9 ST: 9.3 (2 goals)(mom) ST: 7.8 (1 goal) SUBS: 6.9, 6.7, 6.4 (45th/62nd/70th minutes) ave: 7.58

I hadn't realised that the ratings had changed at all, everything seems just as it always was...:confused:

I'm pretty sure cards to affect the rating.

I had RVP on a 10/10 after scored 5 goals in a game.

Then the instant he got booked it went down to 9.8