So, what is a good player rating for you?

As it says above really. With the new decimal system, the ratings appear to be a bit lower this year on average.

What do your players have to get before they get a 'Sensational' or 'Delighted'?

6.8? 7.0? 7.5+?

I hate seeing anything below 7. Annoyingly, even when you play well, it's rare to see a rating much above 7.5.

I am doing anything 7.0 and above as delighted, and anything 6.5-7.0 as well done.

Below that and it's usually a b******ing!

I would say around the 7.0 mark is good. Below 6.5 and I get really annoyed with the player.

Anything over 6 is ok by me.

I'd say 6.5+. So anything that would be a 7 or better on the old system.

7.5+ is very good

Over 8 is excellent

Of course, the system is stupid IMO. 5 should be the baseline, but for some reason 6.4 is.

anything above 7+ lol then i'm delighted!

Just imagine a whole team of 7+

Always have one player with 5.4 or something!

Only if they make a bad mistake like give a pen away like my last match! But 1 min later they gave me a pen sooo

Just imagine a whole team of 7+

Always have one player with 5.4 or something!

I had one game last night where ecery player was 7.0 or above but that is the only time!

For me 6.4 - 7.4 is ok

7.5 - 8.4 did well

8.5 + sensational

However if a player of mine has won the MOM then I always say sensational unless we've been thumped!

um ... 10?

Clearly the new ratings system is dramatically different to FM08. I'd appreciate it when someone has played long enough to make a more scientific analysis. In another post yesterday the great Wolfsong said that in due course he'll be working on a new 'Wolfsong's Guide to Team-talks' - the FM08 was revelatory.

I find the new system a tad laughable to be honest.

Whats the point of a 1 to 10 (with decimal places as well) system when 99% of the time players only ever get between 5 and 8

Has anyone ever seen a 9? Or even a 10??

Or less than 5?

I played a game where my defenders made two huge errors both of which could have cost us goals (they missed a penalty) and he played a 5.3 in the end, how is that possible? Surely a 3 or 4 would have been more appropriate?

As to the ratings though i am content enough with between 6.5 and 7.4 above that they get a special pat on the back, below they get the hairdryer

any individual who gets an 8.0 or above gets a fantastic / delighted, all others get well done really

Under 5.5 gets a dissapointed.

Well done is 7.0+, Delighted depends on the match, normally 7.3-7.5+. Dissapointing is anything below 6.5-6.7, being dropped is anything below 6.0.

I give a delighted if they get above 8, doesnt happen too often, although Ronny got a 9.8 once! other than that I dont really comment on individual performances, rather the team as a whole. Im a bit more generous with youngsters though, someones gotta look after them!

Don't really have hard limits - depends on how I felt they've played in the match, but generally its

anything below 5.5 --> angry, below 6.0 and missing a pen/giving away a goal --> angry

anything between 5.6 and 6.4 --> disappointed, unless they've setup a goal or did something I felt was crucial for my side.

anything between 6.5 and 7.9 is generally a well done, unless a player won MoM and had a rating of at least 7.7. But in that case players with ratings of up to 0.2 lower than the MoM winner deserve a "delighted" as well.

80 onwards --> delighted.

Well, in my quad there a a few players I'm delighted with constantly (Ribery, Messi) and my strikers are generally rather being yelled at (although I know there's a bug, the game probably doesn't lol).

Would have needed some extra buttons.... "kiss" for Ribery receiving a 9.4 rating after scoring a hattrick and setting up another against Man U and "smash a boot in his direction" for Schweinsteiger's 4.9 rating in the league.

Still being hard-coded to old Footy Managers i'm still thinking that anything below a 7 is not good enough, although it clearly is for FM09, need to give it a few months to be FM09-literate

7+ is a good average really.

Anything under 6.7 gets me worried.

I find the new system a tad laughable to be honest.

Whats the point of a 1 to 10 (with decimal places as well) system when 99% of the time players only ever get between 5 and 8

Has anyone ever seen a 9? Or even a 10??

Or less than 5?

I played a game where my defenders made two huge errors both of which could have cost us goals (they missed a penalty) and he played a 5.3 in the end, how is that possible? Surely a 3 or 4 would have been more appropriate?

As to the ratings though i am content enough with between 6.5 and 7.4 above that they get a special pat on the back, below they get the hairdryer

I once had Ryan Babel produce a stunning display to earn himself a...........1.9

Still hasn't been beaten!! (first season, second game - now on fifth season :confused:)

I tend to give team talks based on more stats than just the player rating such as tackles/headers/passes etc. as I don't feel the current rating system accurately reflects player performance.

But I consider anything over 6.5 as good.

I had Anderson get a 10 once for Man Utd against this Japanese team in the world club championship final. I won 14-0 and Anderson got 4 goals.