Average Ratings FM2009

Hi Guys,

Not particulary liking the new decimal point player ratings....however, thats a sep issue.

I know in previous FM games the scoring has went something like this:

5 - Terrible

6 - Not bad, but not good

7 - Decent game

8 - Played well

9 - great

10 - OUTSTANDING

Please with average ratings over the season of 7.xx would have been classed as having a good season.

However, it seems like the avg ratings have been lowered in FM2009??

I hardly ever see anyone get over an 8, loots of 6.xx and some even 5.xx

So....whats seen as a decnt game?? hate to think im saying someone has been in poor form when the game thinks theyve actually done OK!

Cheers

well assistant says that they are having a poor game when they are under 6, so guess that would be around the benchmark

Hi Guys,

Not particulary liking the new decimal point player ratings....however, thats a sep issue.

I know in previous FM games the scoring has went something like this:

5 - Terrible

6 - Not bad, but not good

7 - Decent game

8 - Played well

9 - great

10 - OUTSTANDING

Please with average ratings over the season of 7.xx would have been classed as having a good season.

However, it seems like the avg ratings have been lowered in FM2009??

I hardly ever see anyone get over an 8, loots of 6.xx and some even 5.xx

So....whats seen as a decnt game?? hate to think im saying someone has been in poor form when the game thinks theyve actually done OK!

Cheers

most of my squad are averaging 7.30 ish and i'm topping the table in league 2

Everyone starts at average which is 6.4- A full season average of over 7 is good, 7.25 is very good and above that is excellent IMO

I noticed this as well. I rate performances something like this:

Below 5.5: terrible

5.5 - 6.5: below-par

6.5 - 7.0: decent

7.0 - 8.0: good

More than 8.0: great

I actually prefer this new way of rating. I find I can better judge who is having a good game to who isn't. In previous games I may have subbed somebody that was playing with a rating of 6 by thinking that he isn't playing well, whereas it could now be the case where that player is playing 6.7~6.9ish which can make me think twice about replacing him.

i think its like this:

less than 5.0: horrible.

5.0 - 6.0: Not so good, but the player just playing one or two key balls can gain a boost to his ranking

6.0 - 7.0: Just normal, nothing outstanding.

7.0 - 8.0: Having a good match, making good passes, winning in the air, having a good amount of % on shooting and tacking, etc.

More than 8.0: He is being brilliant. What in previous versions would be a 9 or 10.

All this ranking are when the player didnt made any assist or goal. If that happens his rankings will go up, it doesnt matter if he was playing awful before the goal. The nice thing about this is that the game sees this, for example right now my supporters are unhappy with a player of mine, that happens to be my top goalscorer, because he is banging a lot of goals but not helping the team in other areas. So i think this is a good thing, you cant just see his av rating anymore to see how good a player was in a game.

Also im seeing that a player that is between a 5.0 and a 6.5 gains more points after a good play than one that in that time had a rating of less than 5.0 . Its like when a player goes down to less than 5.0 he is doing horribly and its very difficult for him to impress anyone in that game. Im also liking this, is much more real.

Hi Guys,

I know in previous FM games the scoring has went something like this:

5 - Terrible

6 - Not bad, but not good

7 - Decent game

8 - Played well

9 - great

10 - OUTSTANDING

Actually, in previous versions it went something like this:

1-4 Not used

5 Conceded penalty or was sent off

6 Poor to average performance

7 Good performance

8 Not achievable unless player scored at least 1 goal or the team won by a landslide

9-10 Not used

So really you only had 6,7, and 8 used normally, the others were just for decoration. The new system is far from perfect, but it's much better.

As for there not being many 8s scored now, well that's because previously 7.6-7.9 would all have been rounded up to 8 and now they're not.

I think now 7.00 is a good average. Anything over 7.1 is very good and 7.2+ is exceptional. I'm 2nd in the league after 31 games and only have 2 players averaging 7.20 and above

Actually, in previous versions it went something like this:

1-4 Not used

5 Conceded penalty or was sent off

6 Poor to average performance

7 Good performance

8 Not achievable unless player scored at least 1 goal or the team won by a landslide

9-10 Not used

So really you only had 6,7, and 8 used normally, the others were just for decoration. The new system is far from perfect, but it's much better.

As for there not being many 8s scored now, well that's because previously 7.6-7.9 would all have been rounded up to 8 and now they're not.

I think now 7.00 is a good average. Anything over 7.1 is very good and 7.2+ is exceptional. I'm 2nd in the league after 31 games and only have 2 players averaging 7.20 and above

1-4 certainly was used, I've seen plenty of 3s and even a 2 once in previous games.

As for your other point, that's just bizarre - there never was a 7.6 or 7.9, so I have no idea how you can assume that in previous versions it would be rounded-up? The game never worked in decimals before, so (despite you trying to re-engineer it and apply the current system to something vastly different) it was either a 7 or 8. Simple as.

Yup just to confirm I've seen a lower league goalie getting a 1 for conceding 8 goals in his side's 8-1 defeat. Didn't check how many shots on goal his side conceded but yeah it's definitely used.

SuperMeppen, I think you'll find that the match ratings always had decimals which weren't displayed. The computer calculates out of some high value - 1000? - not ten, so the decimals were always there and had to be rounded.

damn strikers always get 5.x unless they score.

I noticed that sometimes the assitant comments that a player is making many mistakes etc and his score at the time is 7.... looks a bit odd.

SuperMeppen, I think you'll find that the match ratings always had decimals which weren't displayed. The computer calculates out of some high value - 1000? - not ten, so the decimals were always there and had to be rounded.

It may have used a decimal in the behind-the-scenes calcs, but that's something different; from the players' perspective there was no such thing as a high-7 or low-5 - it was either a 5 or 6 or a 7 or 8 and that is how the game was designed to represent things (and the fact that scores of 8+ are less common is testament to the fact that a fundamental shift has occurred), so the point still stands.

But we digress. On a side note, it is interesting that a 7 became the standard for having a decent game, which would technically make 6 the score for an average game.

It may have used a decimal in the behind-the-scenes calcs, but that's something different; from the players' perspective there was no such thing as a high-7 or low-5 - it was either a 5 or 6 or a 7 or 8 and that is how the game was designed to represent things (and the fact that scores of 8+ are less common is testament to the fact that a fundamental shift has occurred), so the point still stands.

Callum62 asked initially why there were less 8s scored, and my answer was that the 7.6-7.9 scores of old (Behind the scenes, of course) were always rounded up to 8. These now get displayed as 7.x so there's bound to be less 8s seen. Players aren't scoring lower, their scores are just being displayed more accurately which due to roundings may appear to be lower. Sometimes they will appear higher than before, ie a player scoring 7.4 would previously have been rounded to 7 whereas now he scores .4 higher than that.

And as for there being scores of 1-4 in FM08, well yes there were 1 or 2 but I analysed all the scores from a whole season in FM08 when I began to realise that lack of variety in scores was a problem, and found that something staggering like 97-99% of all scores were 6,7, or 8.

Unfortunately I can't link to that research any more as it was done on the old board but I can assure you it was the case.

Hi Guys,

Not particulary liking the new decimal point player ratings....however, thats a sep issue.

I know in previous FM games the scoring has went something like this:

5 - Terrible

6 - Not bad, but not good

7 - Decent game

8 - Played well

9 - great

10 -

OUTSTANDING

- IMPOSSIBLE

Please with average ratings over the season of 7.xx would have been classed as having a good season.

However, it seems like the avg ratings have been lowered in FM2009??

I hardly ever see anyone get over an 8, loots of 6.xx and some even 5.xx

So....whats seen as a decnt game?? hate to think im saying someone has been in poor form when the game thinks theyve actually done OK!

Cheers

Just thought I'd fix that for you

And I think 6.4 is average, because when I bring a sub on, they start at 6.4, so I assume thats mid range.

so im someone finishes the season with an average of 6.6, then that would be classed as a not bad season then?

will take a while to get used to!

How many times do you experience players with below 5 or above 8 in FM09? I've played almost three seasons now and have only experiences a few above 8 (very rarely) while never anyone below 5. Which is why I think they should rather use the entire 1-10 range more instead of this new decimal system for this game, cause 1-10 would be enough.

i must admit it took some getting used too, but the more i see of it, the better i like it.

I'm still having problems with low ratings. Is this likely to be caught in that patch?

EDIT: Sorry, remembered I have an email from SI to read regarding new patch.

I think it's more realistic this way. Even if your team is winning games they're hardly going to be playing like devils every night.

I've had a few 8s but the only time I've seen a 9 is when I played nonleaguers in the FA Cup and one of my strikers absolutely buried them with a hat-trick and assists on the other three goals.

I think it's more realistic this way. Even if your team is winning games they're hardly going to be playing like devils every night.

I've had a few 8s but the only time I've seen a 9 is when I played nonleaguers in the FA Cup and one of my strikers absolutely buried them with a hat-trick and assists on the other three goals.

Nah, I'd prefer them to be a little higher, especially players who have had a good season in terms of goals/assists.

For example:-