Problem of Centre Midfielders having Low Avg Ratings !!!!

After going throught season, centre midfielders (not including AMC or DMC) seem to have poor Avg Ratings with each match bringing unspectactular performaces. i started with Man Utd and bought Fellaini and Modric who finished season with Avg Ratings of 6.93 and 7.10 respectively in most matches they would finish with 6.9. other regular midfielders had similar stats : Fletcher 7.0, Scholes 6.85 and Giggs 6.99. Just seems no one can boss midfield area. This lead me to check on other premier league stars who you would expect to be stars of the league never mind their teams and it seems problem is widespread.

Areta 7.05

Ramsey 6.99

Lampard 6.90

Ramires 6.87

Mata 7.04

Carrick (Now Everton) 6.95

Cahill 6.79

Dempsey 6.76

Gerrard 6.89

Barry 6.92

Toure 7.12 (Best)

Barton 6.88

Parker 7.05

interesting to see if anyone else experiencing this "problem".

I have often thought that to be the case, as well. I'll be very interested in hearing some theories. Good question!

It seems to be the case. Midfielders are not rewarded sufficiently for making key passes, tackles or interceptions. Goals are rewarded with match ratings far greater than the key passes that made the goal opportunity. Which is wrong, imo.

I agree - a striker could be on 6.1 and with one kick can go up to 7.6 if he scores with it - even if it is the only significant thing he does in the game. Similarly, a winger could do the same with an assist even when if he has a bad game

this is what i am seeing, rating only increasing (above max avg of 6.9) in goal scoring games, not being rewarded for assists, key passes or key interceptions etc...

there has to be something when all best players are struggling to get good ratings.

Low? The ratings you are seeing, with the exception of one or two, aren't low. They are either average or solid.

Anything above 7.2 is good. And if a player is averaging above 7.4 come the end of the season he has had an amazing season.

exactly 7.2 would b a good season. going on this theory none of the supposedly leading and influencial payers in league are having a good (7.2) season and are only average and below. Im not debating what avg rating makes a good rating because i have many other players with rating above 7.4 going up to 7.8, however never in CM (Only CM position, not DMC/AMC's) position and this is reflected across all teams in the league

more fun when your defence is solid and your goalkeeper gets poor ratings

as it stands my top rated players are

D©

D©

D©

AM (but only a sub apperance and a goal so a bit of a blip)

D©

explains a lot really, defneders get ratings from those corner goals

ST

D/WB(L) long throw taker so assists

NOW THEN

jack rodwell - injured 8 games 1 goal 7.36

gaitan 16(1) 4 goals 7.29

valencia 11 and 2 goals 7.25

yet the likes of lampard and carrick are sat at 6.8

a lot of my midfielders have around 7. but then it is only early december

more fun when your defence is solid and your goalkeeper gets poor ratings

What do you consider a "poor rating" for a goalkeeper?

when the board recommends you drop them due to poor perfomances when you have had 4 clean sheets on the bounce

only reason my keeper is at the rating he is at (7.2) is because he randomly wins MoM awards with strange high rating performances (he got 9.1 in one match)

Deep-lying playmakers are particularly unappreciated, I've found, as if the match engine is programmed with that British bias which seems to undervalue such players, as they are not so likely to create assists or so many "key" passes. They may pass at 95%, help you control the game and set the tempo, but that's not enough and they routinely get 6.9 ratings. The best games they get where they don't score or set one up directly are ones where they get 10 or more interceptions, which is much affected by what they do at set pieces, either sitting back or going forward, taking the kicks or standing with taker.

when the board recommends you drop them due to poor perfomances when you have had 4 clean sheets on the bounce

only reason my keeper is at the rating he is at (7.2) is because he randomly wins MoM awards with strange high rating performances (he got 9.1 in one match)

The board? Never had the board recommend I drop a player. I take it you mean from a coach in backroon advice? Well quit simply just ignore what they say then.

If your goalkeeper is averaging 6.8 or 6.9-ish, then he's doing fine. It simply reflects that he isn't having to do much during games, and if he isn't doing much then he won't be able to get a higher rating.

that is the exact reason, i'm guessing it is the same for DM, they are not the ones getting on the scoresheets or getting all the assists

Yep, the ratings systems rewards goals and assists, and tackles. Passing completion is woefully underlooked.

Yep, the ratings systems rewards goals and assists, and tackles. Passing completion is woefully underlooked.

It could be argued that having a high pass percentage doesn't mean a player is plaing well.

If a player makes 100 passes and completes 90 of them, yet only 20% of them are actually forward passes, of which none of them are "key", then he wouldn't deserve a good rating just because of his high pass completion.

I must admit, as someone who likes a defensively orientated three-man midfield, I find it frustrating because I'm never quite sure which of my midfielders are playing well. Probably my own laziness though in that I look at ratings, but never really analyse my players individually in detail.

It could be argued that having a high pass percentage doesn't mean a player is plaing well.

If a player makes 100 passes and completes 90 of them, yet only 20% of them are actually forward passes, of which none of them are "key", then he wouldn't deserve a good rating just because of his high pass completion.

What if his role is to break up play, but he reads the play so well that he actually intercepts a lot and thus doesn't need to tackle, and his role once he wins the ball is to retain possession and find a team mate, which he does with 95% efficiency.

This type of player doesn't get anything better than average to good ratings. Yet the guy who has no impact on the game, but finds himself on the end of a deflection to bag a consolation goal in a 2-1 loss gets a 7.4.

Also it's all well and good looking at it on a game by game basis, but you'll get players who hold an 85-90% pass completion rating over an ENTIRE SEASON, and they'll still plateau at around 6.8.

Deep-lying playmakers are particularly unappreciated, I've found, as if the match engine is programmed with that British bias which seems to undervalue such players, as they are not so likely to create assists or so many "key" passes. They may pass at 95%, help you control the game and set the tempo, but that's not enough and they routinely get 6.9 ratings. The best games they get where they don't score or set one up directly are ones where they get 10 or more interceptions, which is much affected by what they do at set pieces, either sitting back or going forward, taking the kicks or standing with taker.

Totally agree, and it makes me sad because these are my favourite players.

it happens in real life, micheal carrick is constantly slated. yet he does so much no one notices

I don't think it's that big an issue. Central midfielders play well, they just don't get given a very high rating unless they score. If you appreciate that, then it is slightly irritating but not a big deal. If they were actually significantly worse than other players then there'd be a big issue.

Yep, the ratings systems rewards goals and assists, and tackles. Passing completion is woefully underlooked.

That's because with correct tactical instructions there's no difference between a midfielder having 10 in passing/creativity and 16; they will both have the same pass completion since passes are magically precise in this ME. This is because unless both teams play very narrowly and crowds the centre of the pitch, there is too much space everywhere because strikers, wingers and attacking midfielders don't track back.

So as a consequence, since any square-footed blind man can find his teammate at any time anywhere on the pitch, pass completion is massively ignored in the calculations of the ratings.

passes are magically not precise away from home for me.

its like when it says you have to be more direct in bad weather, so win 5-0 playing the same passing game i normally do in snow...

As I understand it, the ratings system is a simulation of what the media would say about a player's performance. If you think about it that way you'll quickly realize that you should really never judge players on their rating, as a manager at least.

It would be nifty if we could set up our own in-house ratings system and have Opta type of numbers to replace the media-type ratings. You could weigh things like passing percentage, key passes, tackles, SoTs, however you liked and come up with overall numbers that suit your own judgement.

At least we now have the tools to do this ourselves if we'd like with match analysis, but it would be nice....

As I understand it, the ratings system is a simulation of what the media would say about a player's performance. If you think about it that way you'll quickly realize that you should really never judge players on their rating, as a manager at least.

It would be nifty if we could set up our own in-house ratings system and have Opta type of numbers to replace the media-type ratings. You could weigh things like passing percentage, key passes, tackles, SoTs, however you liked and come up with overall numbers that suit your own judgement.

At least we now have the tools to do this ourselves if we'd like with match analysis, but it would be nice....

Yeah, that or rating weighting based on role/duty.

I don't think it's that big an issue. Central midfielders play well, they just don't get given a very high rating unless they score. If you appreciate that, then it is slightly irritating but not a big deal. If they were actually significantly worse than other players then there'd be a big issue.

It's a bigger deal for lower reputation clubs/leagues that rely on hitting that magical 7.0 barrier for a player's value to increase, and it's even worse for goalies. My goalie was just named keeper of the year with a 6.9 rating...in FM terms, his season was "okay." In fact, there wasn't a single goalie in the league that did better than a 7.0 average.

I don't think it's that big an issue. Central midfielders play well, they just don't get given a very high rating unless they score. If you appreciate that, then it is slightly irritating but not a big deal. If they were actually significantly worse than other players then there'd be a big issue.

Agreed. I have Ramsey at Liverpool with a sky high random PA that he has reached and he is steady at 7.1-7.2 AR. Doesn't really bother me, I could probably get it higher by playing a very short passing game but from watching the highlights I regularly see him making the kind of pass that not many players can.

I don't think it's that big an issue. Central midfielders play well, they just don't get given a very high rating unless they score. If you appreciate that, then it is slightly irritating but not a big deal. If they were actually significantly worse than other players then there'd be a big issue.

It IS a big deal...

Under the current rating system it's difficult (if not impossible) separating an "average" MC from a "good" MC because apparently the ME is unable to reward the role with appropriate ratings.

Therefore it'll look like John Bananafoot and Steven Gerrard are playing at similar level... This may not be a huge issue at a higher level, but when you're dealing with mediocre players (<14 in key attributes) it's frustrating and difficult because you can't really get valuable feedback...

Also average ratings will affect a player's value, reputation and marketability...

The issue should be taken into consideration as a priority... Goals and assists can't be the only factors to get an above average rating...

it also effects who gets picked when you ask assistants doesnt it?

I think this can be an issue at times if your CM's do not score goals that often. In my current save my starting CM Javi Martinez is averaging 7.4 with 11 goals in 47 games.

it also effects who gets picked when you ask assistants doesnt it?

Not if every central midfielder is affected.

It IS a big deal...

Under the current rating system it's difficult (if not impossible) separating an "average" MC from a "good" MC because apparently the ME is unable to reward the role with appropriate ratings.

This may not be a huge issue at a higher level, but when you're dealing with mediocre players (<14 in key attributes) it's frustrating and difficult because you can't really get valuable feedback...

Also average ratings will affect a player's value, reputation and marketability...

Good points, I suppose it might be frustrating for some lower league players. Personally I've never used average rating in that way. I'll look at individual ratings when judging whether to praise or not though. I suppose that's another thing, it will be harder to motivate these players by praising their recent performances.

Value and reputation, yes, I suppose that is a big issue.

Don't ratings also affect player development as well as triggering unseen "events" that cause increases to attributes like Consistency and Important Matches?

Low ratings for CMs was a problem in FM11 and 10 as well I think. It's one of many flaws in the game that have been present for two or more versions.

I've come to the conclusion that these sort of problems will never be fixed. The delusion that things will improve in the latest release is a big part of what sells the game. If things like this were fixed, what would be the point in buying a new version?

Call me cynical but...

I agree with the OP.

Also,can't stand my central defenders scoring from set pieces and getting amazing ratings,even though maybe they had a horrible performance in defence.

Low ratings for CMs was a problem in FM11 and 10 as well I think. It's one of many flaws in the game that have been present for two or more versions.

I've come to the conclusion that these sort of problems will never be fixed. The delusion that things will improve in the latest release is a big part of what sells the game. If things like this were fixed, what would be the point in buying a new version?

Call me cynical but...

I think you're right to be cynical, these kinds of things do happen. But I really think they should get something as basic as player ratings sorted and then make us buy new versions with new features etc. It's clear from all these posts that this is effecting peoples enjoyment of the game, which can only serve to stop people buying it eventually.

I've not a had a problem so far in my Chelsea game. Been playing Lampard and Meireles as central midfielders with duty support and they are both averaging near on 7.50 after 10 games. I think if you are playing someone in this role you should tweek a few of the instructions for that position.

I agree, I don't know if it is a problem per se, but I judge my Central/Defensive Midfielders very differently to how I look at my defenders, wingers or strikers.

M'Villa is a key player for my team, yet tends to get 6.9-7.0 as an average rating for the season if he's done well. In any other position, I'd be thinking about selling him given the wages and apparently only being able to play "average" in a successful team. If Hazard, playing in AM or AML rated that over the season I'd be devastated. In previous tactics I've used the CMs scored more goals so tended to get slightly higher ratings, but when they're playing more defensively or as playmakers, that they set up and make a lot of the goals and/or break down a lot of attacks seems to go unregarded in FM at the moment as has done for a few versions now.

Rightly or wrongly, I view a 6.0 as average, you didn't score an own goal, pass to the opposition too much or get yourself sent off.

7.0 you put yourself about a bit and didn't give the ball away, you might even have scored a penalty or got an assist.

8.0 you ran the opposition ragged, the defence were sitting around chatting because nobody got past you, you set up a goal and you managed to score one.

9.0 The striker's hattrick? That was you that was, You made Gerrard at his best look ordinary.

10.0 - Strikers scoring 5 goals and 3 assists don't get a 10, you've got no chance.

That rating broadly speaking holds true for defenders, wingers and strikers. Goalies get it a bit because if you've got a good defence they don't have anything to do. Central midfielders in my team are setting up wave after wave of attack, spraying the ball all over the place, kicking lumps out of the opposition yet 7.0 means they had an exceptional game (but didn't score, if they scored they'll get a 7.4, maybe an 8)

When Fellaini is world class in FM and Carrick is bad enough that he needs to be sold to Everton in FM then there's a problem beyond average ratings..

carrick gets sold often, i got him for blackpool.

there is a problem i think with AI releasing too many wingers as well.

Didn't realise Carrick was world class, but both where bought and sold for different proposes. however transfer dealings is going off topic.

Anyone else still finding this an issue.

Strong bump I know, but many of the points raised in this thread are still relevant

Not really. I've had a player in a central midfield position play 38 games, with 10 goals and 16 assists. He had an average rating of 7.55, getting well above 7.00 even when not contributing in those two department. He's a dribbling wonder though, and made a load of successful runs each game.

These are the average ratings of my central midfielders -

http://gyazo.com/c42031a68a87b518c113c6bb2f760221

My central midfielders are doing great, mid 7's as an avg rating.

I think it boils down to the role you have assigned to them, their suitability for it, and how it contributes to the overall team.

I do experience this when I play a DLP(d) in the middle of a three. He does some pretty unspectacular things and only really gets a high rating in games we are under pressure. I think this is because he contributes to less phases of play and doesn't really support the attacking side much.

After going throught season, centre midfielders (not including AMC or DMC) seem to have poor Avg Ratings with each match bringing unspectactular performaces. i started with Man Utd and bought Fellaini and Modric who finished season with Avg Ratings of 6.93 and 7.10......

Weird that you happen to find this, for my experiences couldn't be more different - within my own team anyway, and I was also managing Man Utd.

My most consistent player over 6 seasons happened to be James Ward-Prowse and that was 99% of the time with James playing CM. His averages were always over 8.0 for the entire season, with one season I remeber him getting an average of something like 7.91.

I can only put this down to your management style and/or tactics. It could also be that one or more of your midfielders just don't work well together, or are too similar in the roles that they prefer to play in that there was neither was bringing out the best in the other one.

Hope you get a change around in form though, for that would also be annoying me, but there is no problem with the performance or average rating where CM's are concerned for me.

Good luck!!

The ratings system has been bugged for a few years now. Im sure if SI could of fixed them they would have, but maybe with the ME its just not possible.

This is a definite issue for me with defensive role midfielders. Digging down in to the stats behind each performance the rating doesn't seem to make any sense.

For example:

My regular Central Midfielder (Def) has the following stats:

Games played 11

Pass completion 88% (Rated 2nd out of players in the same position in the Prem League)

Tackles per game 6.85 (Rated 6th)

Interceptions 64 (Rated 9th)

So, from a defensive perspective you could make a case that his output puts him in the top 10 of defensive midfielders.

Yet, his average rating is 6.65!

I tend to leave him in because I know that he's doing a job but it niggles that maybe I'm missing something.