Player Ratings, why 5.9. 6.2 etc

Is there not a way to change this to 6 or 7, or 8 etc? You don't see many ratings where they are 5.2 etc? Really bugs me! To be honest some of the ratings are pretty unrealistic as it is?

Because 5.2 is more accurate then 5 or 6. IIRC it did used to be whole numbers from 1-10 but they changed it.

It used to be just rounded up numbers in older versions.

I believe the method behind the madness was that a player appearing as 6 may look poor, but he may have played a good (6) at 6.9. Against a player who also appeared as a (6) but did very poorly and only played 6.1. In previous versions both players would've appeared to have played similarly and just been rated as (6). But with the introduction of the decimal you can distinguish between a good (6) and a poor one...

I thought a 6.9 would have been rounded up to a 7. If this is the case then the ratings are a lot more accurate now.

i prefer them as they are now as you get a better indication of how your player is doing.

I thought a 6.9 would have been rounded up to a 7. If this is the case then the ratings are a lot more accurate now.

Even if that was the case, the range for each number would have been the same (eg, a 6.6 is a poor 7, and a 7.4 is a good 7

if i'm down by a goal with 15 minuets to go, one sub left and ive got two CM's left on the pitch...one rated at 6.1 and the other at 6.9...i know who i'm taking off!

I would say half-ratings (i.e. 6.5, 7.5) are all we really needed to go down to, but as the above poster suggests, even a .5 difference can be a rather significant one, especially if it falls between ranges (i.e. .25 and .75).

The Italians have used the current system in FM for years.

They very rarely take it to decimal points though, do they Nobby?

I think it John Foot's book, he talks about some Italian coverage giving 0.5s though (e.g. 5.5 or 6.5).

I didn't think there was anything wrong with the way it was before 1-10...

I didn't think there was anything wrong with the way it was before 1-10...

The problem with it before was that the ratings still had decimals in-game, but they got rounded in order to show as whole nymbers to you. For me, if a player was playing a 5.8 (which would be shown as a 6) I'd be very likely to take them off, but a player at a 6.4 (which would also be a 6) I might give the benefit of the doubt to.

I prefer the new system.

I don't think it's even that realistic to rate players on a scale of 100, it's far too precise. There should be more ambiguity, just like player attributes are on a scale of 20 which seems more realistic.

Ratings are only based on goals scored (and to a lesser degree assists provided) anyway. You gotta look at stuff like tackles won etc, and then you gotta know who those tackles are against and whether they were actually hard to win and... yeah.

Ratings are only based on goals scored (and to a lesser degree assists provided) anyway. You gotta look at stuff like tackles won etc, and then you gotta know who those tackles are against and whether they were actually hard to win and... yeah.

That's a load of nonsense, because it's entirely possible to have a DC win man of the match with 0 goals and 0 assists and a 7.9 rating.

I prefer the current system to the old one. Much easier to tell who is having a really poor game. You might leave a top player on 6.4 on the pitch cause he is capable of doing something magic, if he's on 6.0 though you might think he's just not with it today and take a gamble by whipping him off. The old system both would be shown as 6.

I agree that goals have far too much influence on the rating. A centre back could be having a nightmare of a game but scores a goal and shoots up up to 7.9. Defenders main job is defending. If he is at fault for 3 goals his rating should not jump up to man of the match stuff due to a close range header

That's a load of nonsense, because it's entirely possible to have a DC win man of the match with 0 goals and 0 assists and a 7.9 rating.

It is possible, but goals and assists have too much sway over the match rating, whereas things like red cards don't seem to have any effect at all.

It is possible, but goals and assists have too much sway over the match rating

Isn't that true of real life ratings too?

When they first changed from the old integer system to the new decimal place one, I must admit I didn't like it; I found the new rating system "fiddly", and difficult to read quickly.

Now however, I'd be annoyed if they changed it back. You have a far more accurate picture of how your players are performing, not just in a match but in their average rating over 5 games and the whole season.

Isn't that true of real life ratings too?

Maybe in Fantasy Football yeah

But come on, if a player is having a shocker in FM, then scores a tap in, his rating jumps from 'hairdryer treatment' to 'man of the match'. Needs to be tweaked a bit, too extreme.

Irl if a defender has made numerous mistakes at the back but scores a goal, people don't praise his man of the match performance.

In FM if a defender scores a goal for you and you win the match, he's usually given motm, despite what he has done defensively.

Maybe in Fantasy Football yeah

But come on, if a player is having a shocker in FM, then scores a tap in, his rating jumps from 'hairdryer treatment' to 'man of the match'. Needs to be tweaked a bit, too extreme.

Irl if a defender has made numerous mistakes at the back but scores a goal, people don't praise his man of the match performance.

In FM if a defender scores a goal for you and you win the match, he's usually given motm, despite what he has done defensively.

i dont know if thats true, ive had strikers who are having absolute shockers and gone down to high 5's and they score a goal and by the end of the game, they'll scrape a 6.6

if a defender makes a mistake which leads to a goal its almost impossible to get them back to a good performance, even with a goal, i often think the mistakes have too much affect on the rating, a player can score 2 goals and miss the chance of a hatrick with a missed pen and end up with an average rating instead of what he would have ended up with if he didnt take the penalty.

I don't really understand the complaints about this, it's just simple mathematics. If it's 0-0.4 then round it down, 0.5-0.9 then round it up. That's how it would have previously been displayed.

Because a raing sytem out of 100 is too precise to be realistic. Perhaps you can explain the reasoning behind dispaying player attributes out of 20 (even though they are calculated out of 100) which seems more realistic, yet for player performance it's calculated and displayed out of 100? Seem inconsitent to me.

They very rarely take it to decimal points though, do they Nobby?

I think it John Foot's book, he talks about some Italian coverage giving 0.5s though (e.g. 5.5 or 6.5).

I'm sure McGinniss (spelling?) in The Miracle of Castel di Sangro refers numerous times to players being rated in 0.1s... though I may well be wrong.