Match ratings/MOTM/Goalie ratings

I'll concede to being too lazy to perform a thorough search, so if this is a duplicate thread, nuke it.

Having played both 07 and 08 recently, I can't help but notice that the range of ratings in 08 is far tighter. For the most part, if your team performs very well, you're looking at 7s and 8s. If they perform badly, still 6s and 7s. In the 07, version, it is far easier to see guys dropping to 5s and reaching 10s. I'd even go so far as to say that the 07 version had it spot-on, whereas the 08 version is grading like a teacher who doesnt wanna offend any of the kids - bunch of average grades. Seeing the more extreme ratings helps us identify who truly was key to a victory. In fact I was shocked when a midfielder got the MOTM in a game for me in 07 and he hadn't scored nor assisted anyone.. he just had a very good game. An additional point is that far too often a striker carrying a 9 rating drops to an 8 when my team concedes. Why, if he is entirely uninvolved in the conceding, does he get such blame?

Secondly, I'd say the MOTM award in 08 is rubbish. Scoring a goal is massively overrated, whereas making key passes, tackles or headers is underrated (in both earning a higher rating and getting MOTM). Presently, in 08 90%+ of the time one of the goalscorers gets it, or if no goals are scored, one of the goalies.

Which brings me neatly to my final point - goalies get rewarded for volume, rather than quality of saves. This, I know, has been discussed previously, but should be addressed already. One fact that hasn't been noted before however is that you can improve a goalie's ratings by number of complete passes he makes in a game. Honestly, when I set distribution to 'defender collect', my goalie's completed passes tripled (because they're easy, if less useful), and his form picked up significantly.

I'd like to finally say these are cosmetics I'm talking about and not game-ruining, but returning to the 07 rating system would be a neat move forward by stepping back.

I get what you're saying re the man of the match ratings seeming too reliant on goal scorers...But most of the time it's like that in real life too. Often IRL the goal scorer in a 1-0 will will be awarded MOTM despite one of the midfielders having an awesome game.

It is frustrating but I actually think it's fairly realistic.

I think it's very realistic the way it is now. Look at any football match. If a team is playing well, the entire team is playing well. If a team is playing poor, the entire team is playing poor. That is usually how it goes, in my experience anyway.

Mind you, I do agree that the differences between the ratings for good and bad games should be bigger. For example, if I'm playing with Man Utd against Fulham and I lose 2-0, I would expect that about half my team scores a 5. But usually 7 players will score a 7 and 4 players a 6. I don't know how the grading system works in England, but here in Holland a 6 is sufficient, it's a positive mark. So how can I lose to Fulham with Man Utd, and still have all my players score a sufficient mark? "It's unlogical captain!"

About goalscorers being MOTM: Happens in real life too. Forwards and attacking midfielders always win the big "player of the year" prices. Except for Cannavaro perhaps in 2006, but that was truly an exception. Defenders and defending midfielders are very underrated.

About goalkeepers being MOTM a lot of times: That has been discussed a lot (as you pointed out yourself) and is indeed a little silly to say the least.

IRL the player who gets the MOM is often chosen by the head of the sponsers of that game (it defiantly is in the conference anyway), so in that respect, with most buisnessmen not being expert analysers of the game, they are prone to choosing those who stick out most- the goalscorers. this is just my view on why goalscorers get the MOM however, i dont know the actual reasons.

Oh really? Here at Feyenoord (the club that I support) the MOTM is chosen by the fans, you text your MOTM to a central phone number and who gets the most votes wins.

All fair points, but I'd rather SI gave us ratings and MOTM awards that were true, rather than 'as in real life'. I don't wanna think my stats reflect the opinion of some shmucky businessman or the Sun's editors.

I totally agree with the OP, in most instincts it is hard to tell who to sub, although i also agree with the person who said that in RL if a team has a good game they all do, but i think if it was more critical it would help to see who really does play well and who has played averagly!

And agree with the MOTM thing to, in RL i think Midfielders get it quite often whereas in the game its pretty much the goal scorer every time.

Having played both 07 and 08 recently, I can't help but notice that the range of ratings in 08 is far tighter. For the most part, if your team performs very well, you're looking at 7s and 8s. If they perform badly, still 6s and 7s. In the 07, version, it is far easier to see guys dropping to 5s and reaching 10s. I'd even go so far as to say that the 07 version had it spot-on, whereas the 08 version is grading like a teacher who doesnt wanna offend any of the kids - bunch of average grades.

I agree completely. In all the games I've seen in FM'08, I've only seen a 4 rating twice and have never seen a 10. It's always 6s and 7s, 6s and 7s, perhaps the occasional 8. It doesn't tell you very much when you compare players performances and season averages. The measure isn't fine enough. It would be like if attributes were on a 4 point scale - wouldn't tell you much from player to player.

A quick point I'd make is something that you NEVER see on FM but might in real life is a player playing a blinder but still end up on the losing side... I think 8 is the highest rating I've seen for a player on a losing side, but normally if I lose all my players end up on 6s which I consider to be distinctly average. FM needs to understand the concept of playing well and still losing.

E.g.: if my beloved Swindon Town lost 3-2 to Man Utd, the fans would probably consider this a fantastic result, but on FM my players would get rubbish ratings and the fans displeased.

I remember in cm3 some of my players got 4's and 3's.

I had a right back regen that scored a "3" 2 days ago. In his defense he was 16 years old.

Tevez scored a "10" for me yesterday. But 10 means perfect, so it shouldn't been given a lot. No wonder it's so rare. The perfect performance doesn't exist. A footballer can always make a wrong pass even when he's playing like God himself.

Come to think of it, imagine God as a football player. Boy how good must he be!

I'm fed up of players playing AWFULLY and getting 7's because their constant mistakes were made up for by the rest of the team, and as you say I'm equally fed up of the MOTM striker getting penalised because my left back screwed up. This is another thing that I want improved for FM2009.

Edit: at the moment there might as well just be a team rating rather than individual ones, it would give us the same ammount of feedback and be less OBTUSE.

I'm not saying that every game needs to be full of 1s and 2s, and 9s and 10s, but if a player has an average match, then he should get an average score. Above average, give him credit; below average, dock him a couple points. That way when you see a guy who scores a point or two above average on a consistent basis, you know he's a talent.

The very low (1s & 2s) and very high (9s & 10s) should be reserved for exemplary performances, but should be given when those do happen. My keeper gives up 5 versus an undermatched team, that's worthy of the very lowest score. Unacceptable, and should be scored that way. Give a hat-trick performance against a league rival, what could be better? Mark it accordingly. Over the course of 30+ games in a season, it'll average out.

I guess I'm just frustrated, as a manager, trying to evaluate players based on 0.01 of a point averages. Everyone on my roster is between 6.50 and 7.15! Less than a point! (And that's pretty much the norm on any team, any league, any level, any nation, in my experience.)

The ratings system has been broken for years in this game. I have played every version since the beginning, & the original CM1 had more realistic or certainly more depth in ratings than any game since, which is quite ridiculous. I ignore the ratings completely now, & just rate players on how they do in matches or how my scouts rate them. That is the one advantage watching the whole match, but that is hardly an option for most people, & I think it is about time this issue was sorted. If anything it is getting worse each version.

Realistically 5s should be the average and 1s and 10s should currently be about as often as 10s and 4's that way you get to see the whole spectrum that 1-10 offers ( LOL ) but true.

Yeah I have never seen a fullback with rating of 9 or 10 even if he saved you team from defeat all by himself

i've noticed that the rating system seems to have a bias towards the user - if i go 1-0 down then i'll proabably have all sevens with two 6's, three at most. However, if I go 1-0 up, the AI's team will have all sixes with two 7's, three at the most. Therefore over the course of the season my players are more likely to have a better average rating, therefore more likely to win player of the year, etc. Not the worst thing in the world, but unrealistic and unfair

I agree with the general consensus that ratings are far too score based as well. Quite nice to see a thread where everyone agrees after reading the "announcing the announcement" thread!

The game rating has become too tight, which takes away from its usefulness. Use the whole spectrum and it'll tell managers a little more about how good or bad that player performed.

(And I echo what Wills1987 said... good conversation & discussion on the game... it's great!)

Good thread, guys.

I'm well with vladislav19 on pretty much all of his points:

I find the range of ratings in FM'08 too tight, and too team based. The example of the striker dropping because the team conceded is a good example of why its a problem.

I don't mind goals and assists having a good impact on a player's rating - I think the naive player would expect that. In fact, personally I'm a bit frustrated with FM'08 and how hard it is to get a "10" rating: I've had a player with a hat-trick and an assist in a 6-0 victory who only got a "9". Seriously, what did he need to do to get a "10", score a fourth?

I think mistakes are overvalued a bit, too - sometimes I feel like a "mistake" is fairly harshly judged, and seeing the player dropped from a "7" to a "5" for something I'm not actually upset about bothers me.

And why does making a mistake that doesn't lead to a goal not count against you? I mean, if my central defender gives the ball away three times, and all three times my goalkeeper comes up with a great save .. I want my GK to be on a 9 or a 10, and I want my DC to be on a 3 or a 4.

I'd also like to see defenders "saving a certain goal" to be valued highly: in other words, if my fullback hacks it off the line to save a goal, I want that to bump him up to an 8 pretty quickly.

The bit on goalkeepers being rewarded for volume instead of quality has been true for several versions, and honestly its the thing I'd like to see fixed most of all. I'm surprised SI haven't placed a higher emphasis on it - if only because it might finally kill off the "superkeeper" myth!

The only time I've seen a 10 is if my striker scores at least 4 goals in a game. 3 will only get you a 9. In my whole time with 2008, I haven't had a goalie score above an 8, even when taking a team like Toronto FC and beating Real Madrid 1-0 in a game they (RM) dominated. What really irks me, though, is how a player's rating will change after I sub him. I've seen it go both ways- I've taken a knocked player off at halftime with a 6 rating, won the game, and suddenly his score is a 7. Other times I've taken a player off right after a stoppage (before the ball is played again) and his rating drops from an 8 to a 7 when the game is over, despite the score not changing.

Thats why FML is great since players get 6.4, 7.6 and 8.9 etc.. And I hope Fm09 will use the same system

And why does making a mistake that doesn't lead to a goal not count against you? I mean, if my central defender gives the ball away three times, and all three times my goalkeeper comes up with a great save .. I want my GK to be on a 9 or a 10, and I want my DC to be on a 3 or a 4.

I'd also like to see defenders "saving a certain goal" to be valued highly: in other words, if my fullback hacks it off the line to save a goal, I want that to bump him up to an 8 pretty quickly.

Absolutely agree with this. Too often I read of a goal-line clearance, and then see no improvement in player rating. Whereas strikers can (and do) miss multiple glorious opportunities in a match and still net a 6.

What can be done is to have baseline-shifting events. That is, your game starts at 6, that's your mean or the center around which your score will oscillate depending on the smaller things you do in a match. Then, if you save a penalty, your mean moves +1 to 7. If you score a goal, +1, which would lead to hattrick heroes getting a mean of 10, which they could still drop from if they do something stupid (which sounds bloody realistic to me!). If you complete 5 key passes, or 5 key tackles, +1. If you get a yellow: -1, red: -2.

That's just a rough idea though.

I'll concede to being too lazy to perform a thorough search, so if this is a duplicate thread, nuke it.

Having played both 07 and 08 recently, I can't help but notice that the range of ratings in 08 is far tighter. For the most part, if your team performs very well, you're looking at 7s and 8s. If they perform badly, still 6s and 7s. In the 07, version, it is far easier to see guys dropping to 5s and reaching 10s. I'd even go so far as to say that the 07 version had it spot-on, whereas the 08 version is grading like a teacher who doesnt wanna offend any of the kids - bunch of average grades. Seeing the more extreme ratings helps us identify who truly was key to a victory. In fact I was shocked when a midfielder got the MOTM in a game for me in 07 and he hadn't scored nor assisted anyone.. he just had a very good game. An additional point is that far too often a striker carrying a 9 rating drops to an 8 when my team concedes. Why, if he is entirely uninvolved in the conceding, does he get such blame?

Secondly, I'd say the MOTM award in 08 is rubbish. Scoring a goal is massively overrated, whereas making key passes, tackles or headers is underrated (in both earning a higher rating and getting MOTM). Presently, in 08 90%+ of the time one of the goalscorers gets it, or if no goals are scored, one of the goalies.

Which brings me neatly to my final point - goalies get rewarded for volume, rather than quality of saves. This, I know, has been discussed previously, but should be addressed already. One fact that hasn't been noted before however is that you can improve a goalie's ratings by number of complete passes he makes in a game. Honestly, when I set distribution to 'defender collect', my goalie's completed passes tripled (because they're easy, if less useful), and his form picked up significantly.

I'd like to finally say these are cosmetics I'm talking about and not game-ruining, but returning to the 07 rating system would be a neat move forward by stepping back.

Agree with everything here. The issue of a goalie getting high ratings due to quantity rather than quality of save, even if his team loses heavily, is in the bugs forum.