Match ratings

Is there any real point to them

I often see one player (say a central defender or full back ) have a good game and get a lousy rating because the other central def or full back makes a simple error which the game wrongly penalises the forst player for

Also anyone who scores gets a high rating even if he has a stinker because he scored

I had a def whose rating was 3.9 because he had given away 2 penalties and been booked and generally played garbage then score from a corner and his rating jumped to 7.5

"I suggest dropping our keeper, who hasn't let in a goal for six matches, because he's had nothing to do and thus has averaged 6.67."

Thanks, coach.

YES! Jeez, this is one thing that has gradually annoyed me more and more from FM to FM. Match ratings mean pretty much nothing now, and average rating is a completely useless (and distracting) stat. Used to be you could judge a player by their avg rat pretty comfortably, but now, especially in the lower leagues, all players just have 6.67 - 7.03 or something like that. No range at all. A player can be useless and still have an average rating of 6+. I had a striker get ONE pass in 75 minutes before I subbed him (zero other stats) and still get a 6+ rating.

I just ignore ratings now, but I still find it annoying because they used to mean something.

I think the ratings do a decent job on players (GK the exception), and yes there are those times where goals pump the rating way too high, and wrong rating given to wrong player but over a season's worth of ratings, I find a very decent indicator of how players performed. Of course these are not absolute numbers, you have to consider other things like the strength of your team as a whole, your backup striker that got 7.5 ratings from being played against lower table teams at home doesn't compare to your first team striker that got the same rating but play against the top teams away games. Consider your formations also, my backs will always have the lowest avg rating because their job are mainly to defend and help bring the ball up, and as a passing option, so they won't score goals or create too many of them either, so their ratings are comparable only to my other backs. The same can be said with players from other clubs. A 7.0 striker from mid table team is probably comparable to a 7.25 striker from say Man City because Man City will have superior players so that striker rating will get bumped from all the goals that the team get as a whole. In short imo the rating works but the ratings are relative to some other factors, not a straight out good/bad numbers

I play Jordan Henderson in my Liverpool game and his average rating is always lower than Gerrard's, but i win more games and control the matches more with Henderson playing. For me, a winning combination of players is better than high individual match ratings which dont really tell you how good a job a player may be doing.

YES! Jeez, this is one thing that has gradually annoyed me more and more from FM to FM. Match ratings mean pretty much nothing now, and average rating is a completely useless (and distracting) stat. Used to be you could judge a player by their avg rat pretty comfortably, but now, especially in the lower leagues, all players just have 6.67 - 7.03 or something like that. No range at all. A player can be useless and still have an average rating of 6+. I had a striker get ONE pass in 75 minutes before I subbed him (zero other stats) and still get a 6+ rating.

I just ignore ratings now, but I still find it annoying because they used to mean something.

While I do agree that player ratings could be enhanced in some way, first and foremost I would take a look at my tactics if a player of mine only made one pass in 75 minutes He doesn't actually had to have a poor game. Maybe the way you wanted him to play meant he was never near to get into play.

GK ratings are still a bit under-rated, but they have improved a lot. I used to find it impossible to get a keeper above a 7 av but don't have that problem now. as for the point about goals improving your rating, remind me what the point of football is? If you score twice and do **** all else you've had a great game

Maybe but the ratings jump too much if a player scores

You are 3-0 down his rating is 3.9 . He has been booked and given away two penalties . The only reason he was not dragged off is because i had used all my subs through injuries to other players .

Late in the game your team gets a corner and he manages to score a near post header

Suddenly his rating jumps to 7.5

He scored what was definitely not even a consolation goal how does the rating jump so high

The goal in no way disguises the fact he had a stinker which was obvious from watching the match even without looking at the ratings .

It's still pretty much the same as in IRL. There are a lot of underrated players and a lot of overrated players IRL. Some players (especially defensive midfielders and fullbacks) are more important to team result than their rating shows. Same IRL. They do a lot of defensive work, show no fancy moves, but they are actually key players.

I think it's pretty OK that manager should see through fancy stats both IRL and in FM games. Henderson/Gerrard example above was good example. If you're managing a club, you know your players and you know who actually make a winning 11 in the team. For me it's part of the game and perhaps it's for the best that not everything is put down in numbers.

I feel that the big problem with ratings is that they reflect too much of what soccer magazines are doing when they rate players and don't really reflect how good the player was really playing.

That being said I never pick players according to their ratings and I sure as hell don't listen to what my ass.man has to say.

I recently had a striker play upfront on his own due to injury in champs league, hes only 21, first full season of playing with me. He held the ball up, didnt panic, always played the right pass to an onrushing CM or AML. Basically done the selfless role of lone striker. he managed to get 3 shots off, 2 on target, 1 way off. Rating 5.6 at end of match? Seriously?

Same goes for Anchorman who mops up but plys absolutely no attacking involvement. Such low ratings. And wingers, they seem to drop low too.

Scoring or creating goals are far too important in determining match ratings, I've seen full backs get turned inside out for 85 minutes but because they scored a freak goal they get a 7+ rating.

I find centre midfielders always struggle to get decent ratings in attacking sides with an AMC. If they don't score or assist a goal the rating is 7.0 or below even if they've kept the ball well and won a number of challenges. The CMs in my tactics usually average over 90% pass retention but have an average rating quite a bid lower than any players other than the CBs and GK. And the CBs score more goals than CMs. I find it irritating that the game only seems to acknowledge a direct assist but not involvement in a successful attacking move. This makes it especially difficult for Pirlo like players to get good ratings and ratings affect morale and player value.