The Rating system for GK sucks. It just depends on passing and how many good saves they can get. If you team is really good defensively, allowing 1 or 2 shots for the match, then the GK really never had an impact on the game, so their rating at the end of the match is low.
Future events such as these will affect you in the future.
Re: Low GK ratings?
Originally Posted by Barside
To be honest if a keeper only has one or two things to do in a game then he shouldn't get a rating above 7 anyway.
So then, in real life, when Van Der Sar went on his run of not conceding, why was he praised so highly? Even if it's wrong to praise a goalie who has little to do, it should be in the game I reckon. Atleast as far as working out 'Goalkeeper of the Year' and so on are concerned.
Van der Saar didn't receive anywhere near the praise the outfield players did & I'm sure that he would have received mainly 7 match ratings in the footballing press, he only got the bulk of the coverage towards the end of the run due to the record being attributed to keepers.
Edit: As for keeper of the year Van der Saar is listed in 3rd place by the Premier league indexing yet the PFA listed him as their keeper in the team of the year so I guess it depends on how you want to look at the awards.