Keeper ratings: Time for a change?

How does the game determine if a goalie plays well? I've gone through games where my team has faced twenty shots (with a dozen or so on goal) and have the goalie come out with a shutout...and a rating of 6.8 or so. On the other hand, I've played games where the other team has had 3 shots in total, with one on goal being on target (and scoring) and yet the keeper finishes with a rating over 7.0. What gives? I've gone through 4+ seasons now, and the highest rating my keeper has had for a season was a 6.93. In FM terms, he "played okay." However, in his first two seasons with me (6.92 and 6.93) he was named Goalie of the Year. The best keeper in the league was only "okay" over the course of the season?

Considering that I'm coaching in MLS, I thought I'd take a look at some of the other GoY awards from some of the top leagues (all playable) from 2011 to the just-finished season ending in 2015. The results of the top 3 from each league (if applicable):

Brazil

2011- 7.01

2012- 7.07

2013- 7.03

2014- 6.95

England

2011- 7.04, 7.31, 7.01

2012- 7.08, 6.98, 7.14

2013- 7.06, 7.12, 6.94

2014- 7.19, 6.90, 7.11

France

2011- 7.16, 7.14, 7.11

2012- 7.27, 7.16, 6.99

2013- 7.19, 7.03, 7.07

Germany

2011- 7.11, 6.85, 6.92

2012- 7.06, 7.03, 6.95

2013- 7.07, 7.01, 6.93

2014- 6.95, 6.84, 6.89

Italy

2011- 6.82, 6.71, 6.71

2012- 7.46, 7.16, 7.22

2013- 7.40, 6.96, 7.14

2014- 7.23, 7.24, 6.88

Portugal

2011- 6.97, 6.96, 6.75

2012- 6.88, 6.85, 6.82

2013- 6.98, 6.83, 6.70

2014- 7.08, 7.09, 6.81

Spain

2011- 7.33, 7.50, 7.11

2012- 6.88, 6.98, 7.06

2013- 7.26, 6.98, 7.02

2014- 7.17, 7.16, 7.07

United States

2011- 6.80, 6.72, 6.80

2012- 6.92, 6.81, 6.63

2013- 6.93, 6.93, 6.84

2014- 6.88, 6.77, 6.67

Looking at the numbers, it seems as though France, Italy and Spain are generally seeing "good" performances out of their top keepers for the most part...but where are the game changers? Are these world-class keepers (plus the ones in MLS) really only slightly good over the course of the season? How do you tell apart the average keepers from the great ones?

By contrast, here's some of the numbers for the players of the year across the various leagues: 7.73, 8.03, 7.88, 7.98, 7.73, 7.80, 7.80, 7.89, 7.65, 7.83, 7.79, 7.64

Notice a bit of a difference?

Actually, I think it would be a good thing that keepers do NOT get high ratings. It could easily mean your team has a rather frail defense (But your keeper is at least stopping you from getting hammered). I remember getting a by-then record average rating with Diego Cavalieri at Hull in FM10: 7.48 during the entire season. And I could see that opposing teams had a lot of good goal chances (Still, my team won the EPL that season)

It still depends of your keeper's quality, though: I was recently managing Atlético Malagueño (Just for trying to manage a 'B team'). It had one of the best defenses of the Segunda B, with opposing teams having just two or three shoots on goal... but my keepers were so pathetic that nearly all those shots became goals!

But can we stop with the "Assistant feels you should drop your keeper due to poor form" in EVERY flippin' team meeting?

We're top with the best defensive record in the league, I think I can handle my keeper getting a 6.6 when he keeps a clean sheet thanks.

I think the best way to determine how good a goalkeeper performs is "actions per mistake". If he faces 30 shots, saves 28 excellently but makes two errors, then he's making a mistake every 15 shots, not great but his defence isn't helping him out. On the other hand, if he faces three shots and makes one mistake, then he's done badly. A great goalkeeper will deal with routine saves every match, he doesn't have to ever stand out but he will make very few mistakes.

I think it's commonly understood that ratings are fairly meaningless for goalkeepers and non-attacking midfielders. It's just a shame the game puts so much weight on them.

Does it not have to do also with the oppositions CCC's?

I am sure I have noticed in a couple of games that when your keeper saves what would be a CCC for the opposition his rating increases.

I believe pass completion is taken into account. If the keeper hoofs the ball up the field every time he's got it, and the opposition win it, he's essentially just giving possession away, and will negatively affect his rating. If he throws it out to the unmarked full back it will positively affect his rating.

I think the best way to determine how good a goalkeeper performs is "actions per mistake". If he faces 30 shots, saves 28 excellently but makes two errors, then he's making a mistake every 15 shots, not great but his defence isn't helping him out. On the other hand, if he faces three shots and makes one mistake, then he's done badly. A great goalkeeper will deal with routine saves every match, he doesn't have to ever stand out but he will make very few mistakes.

But how do you know who a great keeper is? The ratings in this game lump them all together so closely that you can't tell who's actually performing well. Is it worth spending $20 million to buy a keeper that might average a 6.85 instead of your regular starter's 6.82? Try that out with an outfield player, however, and the difference will likely be far greater.

Case in point: Just completed a game in which the opponent had 1 shot for the game. 1 shot on goal from distance, no clear cut/half chances and no corners faced. He completed 19 of 21 passes and that was pretty much his entire game. He earned a 6.9...which apparently means that what he did in this game was better than what the best keeper in Italy did for an entire season in 2011.

I agree, Keeper ratings are the most nonsensical of the bunch. For outfield players, the overreliance on goals and assist is another. It seems to me that an outfield player will get roughly the same rating for good or bad games when no major errors or goals/assists are included, EXCEPT when he has an outstanding game, like a CB winning 19/20 headers and 9/9 tackles. Hope that made sense.

I believe pass completion is taken into account.

Big time apparently. I used to watch my keepers launch the ball upfield and give possession away with depressing regularity. It's as if they were aiming for the other team's players. And their ratings were usually down in the 6.30s and 6.40s. Ever since I switched to a rigid defender-collect short pass system to the DR, my keepers' pass completion rates have skyrocketed and their ratings have increased into the 6.70s and 6.80s. Their goals-against are slightly better as well since we're not facing as many attacks but I have to believe that the pass completion stat alone has made a big difference.

I believe pass completion is taken into account.

Big time apparently. I used to watch my keepers launch the ball upfield and give possession away with depressing regularity. It's as if they were aiming for the other team's players. And their ratings were usually down in the 6.30s and 6.40s. Ever since I switched to a rigid defender-collect short pass system to the DR, my keepers' pass completion rates have skyrocketed and their ratings have increased into the 6.70s and 6.80s. Their goals-against are slightly better as well since we're not facing as many attacks but I have to believe that the pass completion stat alone has made a big difference.

Very true. I tried and failed to make my goalkeeper hit my target man/deep lying forward with his kicks but they seem to look for the poacher more often than not and rarely will my poachers win those sort of headers against a decent centre back. Defender collect all the way now for me too although not just for ratings but also for not giving away cheap possession.

But can we stop with the "Assistant feels you should drop your keeper due to poor form" in EVERY flippin' team meeting?

We're top with the best defensive record in the league, I think I can handle my keeper getting a 6.6 when he keeps a clean sheet thanks.

This...really frustrating!!!

But how do you know who a great keeper is? The ratings in this game lump them all together so closely that you can't tell who's actually performing well. Is it worth spending $20 million to buy a keeper that might average a 6.85 instead of your regular starter's 6.82? Try that out with an outfield player, however, and the difference will likely be far greater.

Case in point: Just completed a game in which the opponent had 1 shot for the game. 1 shot on goal from distance, no clear cut/half chances and no corners faced. He completed 19 of 21 passes and that was pretty much his entire game. He earned a 6.9...which apparently means that what he did in this game was better than what the best keeper in Italy did for an entire season in 2011.

The answer is probably to not look at average ratings. Incidentally, it isn't better than the best Italian did for an entire season, it is better than that goalkeeper did on average- I agree that that is pretty damning though!

The GK in question just had the highest rating I've ever seen- a 9.2! Unfortunately, this happened while he was on international duty. His team lost 3-1 in extra time. Curious about the rating with 3 goals given up, I looked at the match stats: his team was outshot 30-1!!!

Apparently, a gk needs extreme amounts of ccc "fantastic saves" in order to get a good rating, and then only if he passes/throws well.

Yeah, I've felt this is an issue for some time. It rather annoys me that if say, my striker does his job and scores, no matter what else happens (barring him scoring a hattrick of own goals or somesuch stupid), he'll get at least 7.1-7.2 rating. My keeper does his job and keeps a clean sheet, and he gets 6.7....

Something along the lines of "rating is equal to average performance of team" might be a good idea here. Possibly a little skewed towards average (i.e. if the team does rubbish but the goalkeeper does nothing wrong as there is nothing he can do about the goals, then he does better than the team; if the team is outstanding against a rubbish side and the goalkeeper is tanning himself because there is nothing to do, then he hasn't really contributed to the fantastic attacking performance).

If a goalkeeper "does essentially nothing of note", then his contribution to the team should be "average" and therefore his rating should somewhat inherit what the team has done.

While this seems a little artificial, I'd argue that when a goalkeeper can't do anything (whether it be because the defence is utterly rubbish, or because the ball spends no time in his own penalty area), the goalkeeper still contributes to the overall defensive performance though organisation. A great team performance needs good communication from the back so the defence can stay strong.

Another argument, of course, could be the average performance of the defence, or a weighted average where greater weight is given to the defence, less to the midfield, and a tiny amount to the strikeforce.

As said before, I have no problem with goalies getting a low average rating when in a successful team. IRL, goalies who make loads of saves with bottom clubs are often highly regarded and raved about, more so than solid goalies at top teams.

What is important, is the comments above that the game should therefore recognise this and not go on about poor form of goalies who are actually doing their job fine.