Rating relative to player ability or team ability?

Hi,

clearly the rating of a player's game-performance has to be relative. Otherwise 6.7ish would not be the average no matter in what league you play.

But is it relative to

a) the overall performance of your team in a single game

or

b) the potential performance of the player in that single game?

In other words:

When I nominate 2 midfielders, a very strong and a very weak one and they both play not as good as they could, but not bad either, do they both get i.e. a 6.7 or does the strong player get a 7.4 and the weak one a 6 ?

-----------

Completely different question (but I dont want to open too many threads):

A new player I just signed is constantely underperforming (ratings on average about 0.5 below the team average) in the first 8 games of the season. He is also less happy then the rest of the players ("OK" = yellow or "good" when most are "very good") and what is especially noticable: When all players get very happy after a won game he gets very happy too, but it stays that way much shorter than with the other players.

All possible reasons I could think of:

From another country/time to adjust? No

Unhappy about any comment I made? No, never

Unhappy about the contracts he got? No, just signed and he is one of the top earners

His profile does say he is "happy to have joined" my club. He is playing his "natural" position.

More ideas?

Thanks

1) I think the ratings are far from accurate, and are heavily influenced by the final result and by specific events (ie. goals, mistakes). I suppose they are relative to the "best possible performance", that being worth a 10.0, so it goes down from there.

But a 6.7 means the player has been unremarkable/average, doesn't matter if he's Messi having a quiet game or Joe Bloggs playing a great match for his skills.

So, ratings are absolute, but relative...

2) The player will need time to adjust himself to the new tactic/training/management... also if he was unhappy at his old club, his bad mood wouldn't go away overnight...

Or he has low mental skills and there's not so much you can do...

Match ratings are "constant". If you make the same amount of passes, key passes, headers, tackles, assists, goals, mistakes, etc. you get the same rating, no matter who the player is, who he's playing for or anything.

I'm not sure about the second part of your post. It could be that he's not blending well with the rest of the squad.

Hi,

clearly the rating of a player's game-performance has to be relative. Otherwise 6.7ish would not be the average no matter in what league you play.

But is it relative to

a) the overall performance of your team in a single game

or

b) the potential performance of the player in that single game?

In other words:

When I nominate 2 midfielders, a very strong and a very weak one and they both play not as good as they could, but not bad either, do they both get i.e. a 6.7 or does the strong player get a 7.4 and the weak one a 6 ?

Not quite sure what your trying to say here tbh.

Its technically possible for every player to score 10.0 and its technically possible for every player to score 0.1. Obviously the chance of this happening is extremely small.

In terms of your second part both would score 6.7 as the ratings aren't compared to their attributes, the rating is simply for what they achieve within the match. Better attributes simply gives them more chance of achieving more within the match.

Completely different question (but I dont want to open too many threads):

A new player I just signed is constantely underperforming (ratings on average about 0.5 below the team average) in the first 8 games of the season. He is also less happy then the rest of the players ("OK" = yellow or "good" when most are "very good") and what is especially noticable: When all players get very happy after a won game he gets very happy too, but it stays that way much shorter than with the other players.

All possible reasons I could think of:

From another country/time to adjust? No

Unhappy about any comment I made? No, never

Unhappy about the contracts he got? No, just signed and he is one of the top earners

His profile does say he is "happy to have joined" my club. He is playing his "natural" position.

More ideas?

Thanks

It takes time for players to adjust to a new team/tactics. Some fit in fairly quickly, others take longer.

In terms of performance some positions (DM/MC) find it more difficult to achieve good ratings as compared to other positions (ST for instance).

His morale could just be down to him "settling in" but it may be his personality means he has trouble keeping high morale.

In response to your first question, I think it's more relative to the team's ability. When my team wins 5-0, say, even a player who had very little to do (like my DC barely being involved) will get a 6.9 or 7.0. Very rarely do positive results see any player get a rating below 6.8, unless they concede a penalty or something.

In response to your first question, I think it's more relative to the team's ability. When my team wins 5-0, say, even a player who had very little to do (like my DC barely being involved) will get a 6.9 or 7.0. Very rarely do positive results see any player get a rating below 6.8, unless they concede a penalty or something.

It's relative to the team's performance in the match. If your team wins 5-0 your DC's will get decent ratings because they probably won a high percentage of their tackles and headers, made very few mistakes etc.

Thanks for the quick responses.

The responses I understood best were "the rating is simply for what they achieve within the match. Better attributes simply gives them more chance of achieving more within the match." (Cougar2010). "But a 6.7 means the player has been unremarkable/average, doesn't matter if he's Messi having a quiet game or Joe Bloggs playing a great match for his skills." (RBKalle) "Match ratings are 'constant'. If you make the same amount of passes, key passes, headers, tackles, assists, goals, mistakes, etc. you get the same rating, no matter who the player is, who he's playing for or anything." (AB-forever)

So from what you are saying the following is true, just to make sure I understand:

1) I a nominating 2 players for the squad, Messi and the horrible Joe Blogg. To our complete suprise both make 1 assist, have 80% of their passes reach the destination, run exactly 10miles etc. Then both will be rated the same? Correct?

2) If this is correct, then one of my youth players who doesnt have the stats yet to really be in the team but plays on average 7.2 performances when I sub him should get the spot over my experienced (according to attributes much better) player on that position who gets 6.9 on average? Correct?

3) This would also mean that a completely average footballer playing in a far too high league would constantely get 4.0 or below ratings (because he would have no success whatsoever against the opposition, no chance to make assists or passes etc) but would always get 8.0 and better results when playing in a league he is much too good for. He thus would be rated 4.0 or 8.0 for the same effort only because he is playing against different opposition? Correct?

So from what you are saying the following is true, just to make sure I understand:

1) I a nominating 2 players for the squad, Messi and the horrible Joe Blogg. To our complete suprise both make 1 assist, have 80% of their passes reach the destination, run exactly 10miles etc. Then both will be rated the same? Correct?

Correct.

2) If this is correct, then one of my youth players who doesnt have the stats yet to really be in the team but plays on average 7.2 performances when I sub him should get the spot over my experienced (according to attributes much better) player on that position who gets 6.9 on average? Correct?

Not entirely correct.

One good performance doesn't mean much... Consistency is the key. A green youngster can play the odd great game, but if he hasn't the skills to keep it up, he'll go nowhere fast.

3) This would also mean that a completely average footballer playing in a far too high league would constantely get 4.0 or below ratings (because he would have no success whatsoever against the opposition, no chance to make assists or passes etc) but would always get 8.0 and better results when playing in a league he is much too good for. He thus would be rated 4.0 or 8.0 for the same effort only because he is playing against different opposition? Correct?

Once again, theoretically and logically correct, but not entirely true.

If your team is good enough, you can play a sub-par player and he'll won't get 4.0 ratings unless he really drops the ball... A quiet game in a 3-0 win will earn him a 6.8 and he can keep that sort of "form" for quite a long time.

3) This would also mean that a completely average footballer playing in a far too high league would constantely get 4.0 or below ratings (because he would have no success whatsoever against the opposition, no chance to make assists or passes etc) but would always get 8.0 and better results when playing in a league he is much too good for. He thus would be rated 4.0 or 8.0 for the same effort only because he is playing against different opposition? Correct?

Incorrect. Because that makes no sense.

He would get a worse rating because he performed worse. It doesn't matter what the quality of his opposition is, that won't affect his Match Rating. His rating is not connected in any direct way to his stats. His stats simply give him more of a chance to perform better.

Let's put it this way. You take a striker from League 2 in England, and you put him up against Vidic and Ferdinand in a Premier League match. Chances are he is going to get beaten in all his challenges, and lose his fights. That would contribute to his poor rating. Put him up against League 2 defenders, and he has more of a chance of being successful because the quality of the opponent is less, giving him a greater chance to succeed because they are not so good. So he will be more likely to win fights, or be able to dribble past them.

This player will get a bad match rating if he does badly (loses his challenges) whether it is against Man Utd or Worcester City. However, if he wins his fights, and scores a goal, he will get the same rating against Man Utd as he would against Worcester City.

(...)

It doesn't matter what the quality of his opposition is, that won't affect his Match Rating. (...)

Let's put it this way. You take a striker from League 2 in England, and you put him up against Vidic and Ferdinand in a Premier League match. Chances are he is going to get beaten in all his challenges, and lose his fights. That would contribute to his poor rating. (...)

Read your above text again please, you are contradicting yourself. First you say I am wrong, the opposition doesnt matter. Then you say exactly what I am saying: The opposition does matter.

Also I believe if you read my number 3) again I think you will notice that you read maybe a bit fast for my bad English . This is not an easy topic, because indirect effects have a big part .

Anyway, thanks for the input everyone. This is an interesting aspect of the game and it is clearer now to me (and maybe others).

Correct.

Once again, theoretically and logically correct, but not entirely true.

If your team is good enough, you can play a sub-par player and he'll won't get 4.0 ratings unless he really drops the ball... A quiet game in a 3-0 win will earn him a 6.8 and he can keep that sort of "form" for quite a long time.

Yes. That makes a lot of sense.

Read your above text again please, you are contradicting yourself. First you say I am wrong, the opposition doesnt matter. Then you say exactly what I am saying: The opposition does matter.

Also I believe if you read my number 3) again I think you will notice that you read maybe a bit fast for my bad English . This is not an easy topic, because indirect effects have a big part .

Anyway, thanks for the input everyone. This is an interesting aspect of the game and it is clearer now to me (and maybe others).

What I'm trying to say is that you won't get different match ratings just because the opponent is different or better, the player still has to perform.

Maybe I can explain it another way...

A 10 rating in FM is a fixed rating. It is not dynamic, or relative to anything. If you do good things, your rating increases, if you do bad things, your rating goes down.

If you gain 0.1 rating for an accurate pass, you will gain 0.1 rating whether it is against Man Utd, Barcelona, or Lincoln City. The point is, that because the opponent is worse, it will have less of a chance to get intercepted, because the players are not as intelligent. You will not gain more rating or less rating, it will be a fixed amount.

Likewise, if you are a bad defender, if you have Lionel Messi running at you, chances are, you will not be able to tackle him. This means he will run past you, and you will get a bad match rating. However, if this defender is Patrice Evra, he is a lot better, so has a better chance of performing well, because he is more intelligent, and better skilled. He will still gain the same amount for doing a good thing, he is just more likely to do more good things. Of course, if he has a bad game, he can still get a bad rating if Messi runs past him every time.

Read your above text again please, you are contradicting yourself. First you say I am wrong, the opposition doesnt matter. Then you say exactly what I am saying: The opposition does matter.

Also I believe if you read my number 3) again I think you will notice that you read maybe a bit fast for my bad English . This is not an easy topic, because indirect effects have a big part .

Anyway, thanks for the input everyone. This is an interesting aspect of the game and it is clearer now to me (and maybe others).

What everybody are saying here is that he doesn't get a "bonus" or anything for winning an aerial challenge against Vidic compared to winning an aerial challenge against Joe "CD" Average in League two. A challenge won is a challenge won, and a goal scored is a goal scored. FM is just number-crunching, there is no magic.

So no, the quality of the opposition has no direct effect on your players' stats. And yes, since a L2 striker won't have a chance against the likes of Vidic and Ferdinand, he most likely will play very badly if you field him against Manchester United in the PL. There is no contradiction here. Only logic.

Your two midfielders will both get 6.7, and yes if your youngster plays better in his role than the star player, he plays better. The question is how important that is, though. I often disagree with the rating of some of my players as I feel what they did for the team was more important than the guys scoring goals and ending on 8.0+ ratings just because of that. Pity I can't praise them for it...

To your other question:

- a player that underperforms will eventually get low morale, and if he has low morale he will underperform. Check the assistant's pre-match report to see if he gels with the team or is used to a different style of play. He may also have a difficult personality, lacking the professionality that is required. What is the assistant saying about him in the player report?

Hmm. I appreciate all the postings. A honest thanks for that.

And its probably just me being a bit thin-skinned but what I dont like are formulations like "... that makes no sense." or "What everybody are saying here is ..." because that implies that I am too dumb to understand what everyone is saying.

It seems like (and sorry for now beeing 'to the point' as well) you fail to see that what you are telling me is exactly what I have already said above:

3) This would also mean that a completely average footballer playing in a far too high league would constantely get 4.0 or below ratings (because he would have no success whatsoever against the opposition, no chance to make assists or passes etc) but would always get 8.0 and better results when playing in a league he is much too good for. He thus would be rated 4.0 or 8.0 for the same effort only because he is playing against different opposition? Correct?

What was maybe a bit difficult to see is that

Strength of opponents => Player makes less succesfull tackles, assists, passes etc => Worse Rating

means that "Worse rating" is depending on "Strength of opponents" (what you say is "incorrect") . It is just not directly depending on it, so maybe that is what could be misunderstood or maybe a question of terminology.

Anyway, sorry about being thin-skinned, I have very important exams in 10 days and should be learning instead of playing.

Moving on to different topics ...

Thanks

hmm... I'd like to throw other things into the hat...

two players can never get the same ratings for doing the same things as what they do have different weights dependant on the position played. A winger making a tackle by the opposition corner flag isn't anywhere near as crucial as your centre-back making a last-ditch challenge on the edge of the box. Similarly, your centre-back dribbling the ball from the edge of the area to the centre-circle isn't rated as highly as a Striker dribbling through the opposition defence.. Also, an assist can be from several things... a header, a pass, a corner, a free-kick, a clearance, a ricochet, etc if one of your players makes a 40 yard pass that puts the ball on your strikers toes making it impossible for him to miss whilst the other gets an assist because the ball hit his arse and bounced in front of your striker giving him an open goal they would get different ratings...

your weak player analogy doesn't work either as it is possible for weak players played to their strengths to out-perform better players in the same position... My top scorer last season is rated at 1.5 stars... my best striker is rated at 4 stars... the former kept the latter out of the side for much of the season...

As for your new player, he just needs time to settle in and get to know his team-mates. Does his personality clash with the rest of the squad's? Are you talking to him at all between matches? Are you giving him individual team-talks post-match ("well done" "fantastic" etc)? There are lots of variables to take into account but as long as he is performing OK and you are happy with his contribution there isn't a problem... he'll eventually settle in especially if you make him feel part of the team