Closed Thread
Results 1 to 56 of 56

Thread: Critique of player ratings - is 0-10 (or realistically 4-9) enough?

  1. #1
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Location
    The Wirral.
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    This thread concerns the scores attributed to players for their performances in matches; and the related merits/flaws of the system.

    Having read various accusations levelled at the game based on how players are scored (varying from "this stat is worthless" to "the game is hiding the fact it cheats by giving my players higher scores") i decided to look into this, having previously noted that many times a player would play spectacularly well and yet fail to get recognition.

    Positives

    1) Over the course of a season, the players with the higher average scores are generally those who have performed exceptionally.

    Long term the scoring system is fine, the expected players are appearing to score higher overall and you can tell which team members are useless.

    2) The 0-10 system is familiar to players. We know a 6 hasn't done much. We know a 7 is doing his job. We know to sub a 5. etc etc etc. Or at least that was true....

    Negatives

    1) Point 2 no longer appears to be accurate in FM08.

    The best example for this is goalkeepers.

    I will provide a representative example;

    Chelsea vs Derby. (ended 2-0)

    Both GKs got 7s.

    Cech touched the ball TWICE in 90mins.
    One was a 10 yard successful pass, the other a miss-hit clearance that went straight out for a throw in.

    He did not make a save.

    Steven Bywater made 19 saves.
    The 2 goals he conceded where unsaveable (a kaka strike from 15 yards and a lampard pen, conceded by a defender).
    Amongst these saves were 6 one-on-ones (although that's for another thread...).

    Bywaters passing success was around 60% (approximately) with generally good distribution short, and passable long kicks upfield - if he wasn't kicking towards john terry it would have been higher.

    So, can ANYBODY, claim that the 2 goalkeepers performed to the same level??

    One did his job but messed up half of it. The other singlehandedly kept the score respectable.

    This is just the most prominent example of the sketchy scoring system, there are MANY more.

    2) Lack of resolution. 0-10 is not detailed enough. If my team is performing averagely, i get a bunch of 6s and 7s - even an increase to increments of 0.5 would be a spectacular improvement over the current state (and is infact what i would recommend, any more and there would probably be too many problems with it).

    3) Scores are related too strongly to goals/assists. I've had my left backs play blinders, and get a 7, because the stupid bloody striker didn't put away one of his crosses; but my right back takes corners, and despite over-hitting 3/4 of them, he gets an assist off one, and gets MOM....

    Similarly, with goalkeepers. They can be pulling off save after save, but as soon as the clean sheet is lost, the score drops - regardless of whether or not they could save the shot.

    Granted there are more pressing problems with FM, but yet again this is one that has been around for a while and has only got worse with FM08.

    I'd produce a thread like this outlining the problems with the match engine...but it would take half of forever.

    Pat on the back to anybody who has bothered to read all this

    Cheers

  2. #2
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Location
    The Wirral.
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    This thread concerns the scores attributed to players for their performances in matches; and the related merits/flaws of the system.

    Having read various accusations levelled at the game based on how players are scored (varying from "this stat is worthless" to "the game is hiding the fact it cheats by giving my players higher scores") i decided to look into this, having previously noted that many times a player would play spectacularly well and yet fail to get recognition.

    Positives

    1) Over the course of a season, the players with the higher average scores are generally those who have performed exceptionally.

    Long term the scoring system is fine, the expected players are appearing to score higher overall and you can tell which team members are useless.

    2) The 0-10 system is familiar to players. We know a 6 hasn't done much. We know a 7 is doing his job. We know to sub a 5. etc etc etc. Or at least that was true....

    Negatives

    1) Point 2 no longer appears to be accurate in FM08.

    The best example for this is goalkeepers.

    I will provide a representative example;

    Chelsea vs Derby. (ended 2-0)

    Both GKs got 7s.

    Cech touched the ball TWICE in 90mins.
    One was a 10 yard successful pass, the other a miss-hit clearance that went straight out for a throw in.

    He did not make a save.

    Steven Bywater made 19 saves.
    The 2 goals he conceded where unsaveable (a kaka strike from 15 yards and a lampard pen, conceded by a defender).
    Amongst these saves were 6 one-on-ones (although that's for another thread...).

    Bywaters passing success was around 60% (approximately) with generally good distribution short, and passable long kicks upfield - if he wasn't kicking towards john terry it would have been higher.

    So, can ANYBODY, claim that the 2 goalkeepers performed to the same level??

    One did his job but messed up half of it. The other singlehandedly kept the score respectable.

    This is just the most prominent example of the sketchy scoring system, there are MANY more.

    2) Lack of resolution. 0-10 is not detailed enough. If my team is performing averagely, i get a bunch of 6s and 7s - even an increase to increments of 0.5 would be a spectacular improvement over the current state (and is infact what i would recommend, any more and there would probably be too many problems with it).

    3) Scores are related too strongly to goals/assists. I've had my left backs play blinders, and get a 7, because the stupid bloody striker didn't put away one of his crosses; but my right back takes corners, and despite over-hitting 3/4 of them, he gets an assist off one, and gets MOM....

    Similarly, with goalkeepers. They can be pulling off save after save, but as soon as the clean sheet is lost, the score drops - regardless of whether or not they could save the shot.

    Granted there are more pressing problems with FM, but yet again this is one that has been around for a while and has only got worse with FM08.

    I'd produce a thread like this outlining the problems with the match engine...but it would take half of forever.

    Pat on the back to anybody who has bothered to read all this

    Cheers

  3. #3
    Youth Team
    Join Date
    19th October 2006
    Location
    Wigan
    Posts
    5,301

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Ched:

    3) Scores are related too strongly to goals/assists. I've had my left backs play blinders, and get a 7, because the stupid bloody striker didn't put away one of his crosses; but my right back takes corners, and despite over-hitting 3/4 of them, he gets an assist off one, and gets MOM....

    Cheers


    Gotta agree with this. My right-back can have a dreadful game, but score a penalty (not hard to do) and manage to get an 8.

  4. #4
    First Team Regular
    Join Date
    14th April 2001
    Location
    thierry ennui
    Posts
    27,831

    Default

    imo a 6 should be both the rating a player starts with, and the rating he finishes the match with if he's had an average game

    as it stands, if a key man finishes the game with a 6, he's described post-match as having had an alright game, but if a player gets a few sixes in a row, he's considered to be playing pretty badly, and ai managers will often criticise players for showing this kind of form. the game doesn't seem to have made up its mind as to whether 6 or 7 is an acceptable rating

  5. #5
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    21st July 2006
    Posts
    2,654

    Default

    I think the changes that were made to player ratings in FM08 were a step in the right direction but there is still a lot of room for improvement.

    About your negative point 1, I think that in some areas (such as GK) the variation that is possible between player ratings has been toned down too much. It is not true for absolutely everything though.

    IMO your idea about putting more detail in, such as changing to increments of .5 is not a good one. The player ratings are meant to be a quick, at-a-glance thing and the current scale of 0-10 is right. Changing it to include more numbers (or having decimals put in) would make it too detailed and just confuse matters, as well as make it less likely to be realistic.

    Your third point is correct, player ratings are still too strongly connected to specific incidents such as goals, it did improve a little in FM08 but there is plenty of space for improvement. Although, it could be said that it is realistic in comparison to ratings you will find in newspapers, websites etc... in that the memorable things such as goals will make more of an impact. Like with everything, there is a very fine balance between both extremes that SI needs to find.

  6. #6
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    24th December 2005
    Location
    OTF: The Football Manager player's Mumsnet
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    An interesting topic to critique - one that hasn't been brought up recently

    quote:
    Originally posted by Ched:
    This thread concerns the scores attributed to players for their performances in matches; and the related merits/flaws of the system.

    Having read various accusations levelled at the game based on how players are scored (varying from "this stat is worthless" to "the game is hiding the fact it cheats by giving my players higher scores")


    Blimey - some people are getting quite vociferous on here!

    quote:

    ...
    Positives

    1) Over the course of a season, the players with the higher average scores are generally those who have performed exceptionally.

    Long term the scoring system is fine, the expected players are appearing to score higher overall and you can tell which team members are useless.


    This demonstrates the elegance of a simple points system - coupled with the form ratings you can tell whether a player is enjoying a brief run of form; or is underforming; is (in)consistent

    quote:

    2) The 0-10 system is familiar to players. We know a 6 hasn't done much. We know a 7 is doing his job. We know to sub a 5. etc etc etc. Or at least that was true....


    I suspect that the way points are applied has evolved. The system appears to have changed that scores of six and seven now relate to a player 'doing his job' - but he scores six in a side that loses and seven in a side that wins.


    quote:

    Negatives

    1) Point 2 no longer appears to be accurate in FM08.

    The best example for this is goalkeepers.


    I think goalkeepers are a special case when it comes to the scoring system. I will explain my position a few quotes down

    quote:

    I will provide a representative example;

    Chelsea vs Derby. (ended 2-0)

    Both GKs got 7s.

    Cech touched the ball TWICE in 90mins.
    One was a 10 yard successful pass, the other a miss-hit clearance that went straight out for a throw in.

    He did not make a save.

    Steven Bywater made 19 saves.
    The 2 goals he conceded where unsaveable (a kaka strike from 15 yards and a lampard pen, conceded by a defender).
    Amongst these saves were 6 one-on-ones

    Bywaters passing success was around 60% (approximately) with generally good distribution short, and passable long kicks upfield - if he wasn't kicking towards john terry it would have been higher.

    So, can ANYBODY, claim that the 2 goalkeepers performed to the same level??


    No. I cannot argue that simple question. But should the question you are asking be more complex?

    There are two issues here:

    Case 1) Older versions of CM/FM underrating goalkeepers.

    Case 2) Older versions of CM/FM overrating

    To follow your example:

    quote:

    One did his job but messed up half of it. The other singlehandedly kept the score respectable.

    This is just the most prominent example of the sketchy scoring system, there are MANY more.


    Now for some historical context

    Case 1: Cech - As most CM/FM players used to find success very easy to come by, their goalkeepers would be often as inactive as yours. Imagine, if you will, the not uncommon case of a goalkeeper who keeps a clean sheet but makes no saves and misplaces his one pass. What mark would he get for that? A six? Or a five for his 0% passing rate? Do we ignore the clean sheet and the overall performance bonus awarded for being on a winning side? Can you imagine the uproar on here with "Peter Cech kept 25 clean sheets but got an average rating of 6.25 for the season. SortItOutSI!!!!!1"



    Case 2) - Bywater. yes that's a lot of saves and yes that seems a low score. But you only have to look back to FM 2005 (and Amaroq's marvellous "Sharpening a Rusty Blade" Story in the Stories forum) to see ample evidence of GK's being awarded MoM awards simply because they were under constant barrage; even if they conceeded 2 or 3 goals in a losing performance. This case has to be seen with historical hindsight. The scoring for GK's has evolved - maybe it needs a few more tweaks.

    quote:

    2) Lack of resolution. 0-10 is not detailed enough. If my team is performing averagely, i get a bunch of 6s and 7s - even an increase to increments of 0.5 would be a spectacular improvement over the current state (and is infact what i would recommend, any more and there would probably be too many problems with it).


    I disagree that it would be a spectacular improvement. However steps of less than 0.5 would be unnecessary.

    quote:

    3) Scores are related too strongly to goals/assists. I've had my left backs play blinders, and get a 7, because the stupid bloody striker didn't put away one of his crosses; but my right back takes corners, and despite over-hitting 3/4 of them, he gets an assist off one, and gets MOM....

    Similarly, with goalkeepers. They can be pulling off save after save, but as soon as the clean sheet is lost, the score drops - regardless of whether or not they could save the shot.


    Agree with goals/assists being too beneficiel. See above for my GK retort.

    quote:
    Granted there are more pressing problems with FM, but yet again this is one that has been around for a while and has only got worse with FM08.

    I'd produce a thread like this outlining the problems with the match engine...but it would take half of forever.

    There's been a few, lost to the mists of time.

    quote:

    Pat on the back to anybody who has bothered to read all this


    It's nay bother. Points to anybody who can spot when I had to start typing quicker!
    Cheers[/QUOTE]

  7. #7
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Location
    The Wirral.
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Fair point regarding clean sheets; although i would rather the GKs rating showed HIS contribution to the clean sheet, rather than - he got a clean sheet = 7. As in the case i showed, he did essentially nothing. Due to the fact players start with a 6, if a gk does nothing then a 6 would be a fair representation.

    And as to people moaining "Peter Cech kept 25 clean sheets but got an average rating of 6.25 for the season. SortItOutSI!!!!!" - it would happen, but i feel the subtlety of a working scoring system would not be lost on some of us

    As to Bywater, yes i remember when my tranmere keeper got higher scores than the rest of my team, it was the perfect representation of what he did in the match, perhaps they've had to tweak it as due to the one-on-one bug the opposition GKs would get MOM every game?

  8. #8
    Third Team
    Join Date
    24th July 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,798

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Ched:
    Fair point regarding clean sheets; although i would rather the GKs rating showed HIS contribution to the clean sheet, rather than - he got a clean sheet = 7. As in the case i showed, he did essentially nothing wrong.


    Thats the way you should look at it for goalkeepers. Outfield players will always be involved in a match, goalkeepers not. So to prevent a goalkeeper from having an avg. rating of 6.25 despite having 25 clean sheets, he should have a 7 if he doesnt mess anything up.

    Similarly, if you make 20 saves then thats very good, but unless many of them were absolutely world-class saves, you deserve a 6 for conceding two goals which meant your team lost 2-0. (only if they were two penalties or something like that, might a goalkeeper be excused).

    If you dont do it that way, ratings for goalkeepers would be reversed. Crappy goalkeepers get high seasonal average ratings because they make so many saves and world-class goalies get crappy ratings. Is that a realistic reflection of how good they are? I know I wouldnt trade Cech for a goalkeeper from a relegation team, even if his rating is 0.5 points higher then Cech's. (which would mean goalkeepers ratings are pointless, because the best clearly isnt the best)

  9. #9
    Part-timer
    Join Date
    2nd August 2006
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA, USA, North America, Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,313

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by SWaRFeGa:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Ched:

    3) Scores are related too strongly to goals/assists. I've had my left backs play blinders, and get a 7, because the stupid bloody striker didn't put away one of his crosses; but my right back takes corners, and despite over-hitting 3/4 of them, he gets an assist off one, and gets MOM....

    Cheers


    Gotta agree with this. My right-back can have a dreadful game, but score a penalty (not hard to do) and manage to get an 8.


    Generally, I've got to disagree up to a point. If a winger generally has a poor game, doesn't beat his man, delivers poor crosses, or just doean't get involved, BUT delivers 1 great cross resulting in a goal, then hasn't he kind of done his job?

    The game is all about goals and scoring or creating them(or creating good chances at least) then shouldn't players who do this be given a higher rating?

    Likewise, players who prevent them at the other end should be given a ratings boost, great saves, mark a striker out of the game etc etc

    I do agree however, that scoring a penalty should not push a player up from a 6 to an 8, which happens too frequently.(though in FM07 that "8" would almost instantly drop to a "7")

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    17th August 2006
    Location
    Sunny Thailand!
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Sadly FM is a bit rubbish at making the subjective judgement about the quality of a performance. And in that word subjective lies the problem. It's a bit too abstract for FM to work out. The problem is that these ratings have an effect. They affect player reputation and value, they affect morale and they affect 200000 other things. It's broken but it's breaking other things too. FM is a mess.

  11. #11
    Youth Team
    Join Date
    21st January 2005
    Location
    I used to chase eggs. Now I am just trying not to respond to eegits.
    Posts
    5,002

    Default

    I think a 1-10 rating is adequate, however I have a number of issues with the current way of calculating match ratings.

    1. GK's appear to be rated using the same formulae as outfield players so pass percentage for example plays far to high a role in determining a GK's match rating.

    GK's urgently need their own formulae for calculating match ratings.

    2. Errors. It appears that a player is only penalised for an error during a game if this error actually results in a goal. If the centre-half plays a sloppy ball that is intercepted by the opposition striker and then the GK bails him out with a wonder-save then the defender isn't marked down for his error. On the other hand, if a defender makes a key tackle as the opposition is in the act of scoring and the ball runs to a player who subsequently scores, it is classed as a poor clearance and a mistake and he is marked down accordingly.

    3. All defenders marked down when a late goal in sonceded. You are winning 5-0 in the dying minutes and the game is in the bag. Your centre-half is robbed when in posession and the attacker goes on to slot past your GK and the score ends 5-1. Youe left back who has scored 1 goal and created 2 others and been brilliant all day is marked down from a 9 to an 8 through no fault of his own and the other 2 defenders are marked down from an 8 to a 7.

    PENALISE MISTAKES, NOT SCORE-LINES.

    4. 10's. A hat-trick should generally mean a 10 score.

    5. Can't be bothered with any more .

  12. #12
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    29th October 2006
    Location
    Right Behind You
    Posts
    2,549

    Default

    quote:
    "Peter Cech kept 25 clean sheets but got an average rating of 6.25 for the season. SortItOutSI!!!!!"

    What it should be is, a clean sheet is equal to 7 no matter what. Because we assume that the GK is somehow partly responsible for keeping that clean sheet, even if it simply means not making any mistake.

    But for a GK to have 25 clean sheets, he should have 7+ average rating. Because as much as the only goal win a game, The one or two saves Peter Cech would be making in most of those 25 games should see him getting an 8. 7 for the clean sheet, and an extra point for making the save when it matters.

  13. #13
    Amateur
    Join Date
    22nd January 2008
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Argh, I've just had an absolute nightmare of a replay against Liverpool that relates to this post considerably.

    While I agree that the reward for the smallest of achievements within a match rating wise is a bit much as things stand I also find that the penalty to a players rating for a serious mistake also seems a little too small.

    I was 3-1 up away to Liverpool in the aforementioned replay. In injury time they score a second which my players couldn't do much about. However, shortly after Torres snaps a shot at my keeper who parries the ball in what should have been a safe direction towards my CB with nobody anywhere near him. He then proceeds to nudge the ball into my own net with my GK still recovering from his save. In to Extra Time, my other CB goes on to concede two ridiculous penalties, one of which is saved but the other is scored. The game finished 5-3 to Liverpool, who I had outplayed in the initial 90 minutes, and my 2 CBs get 6's while my left back, who as far as I could see did nothing wrong, certainly nothing as wrong as the actions of my CBs, gets a 5.

    I was of course furious with my centerbacks but could only fine one for 2 weeks (unfair apparently) because the other released a statement saying he regretted conceding the penalties he did in Extra Time. Both defenders should have had ratings of 5 at MOST for their hand in my departure from the FA cup and to say that fining them 2 weeks wages for what they did is nothing short of laughable. Had the option been there to fine them for 3 or 4 I surely would have

  14. #14
    Amateur
    Join Date
    22nd January 2008
    Posts
    138

    Default

    *sigh* 'to say that fining them 2 weeks wagesfor what they did is unfair is nothing short of laughable

  15. #15
    Amateur
    Join Date
    29th December 2007
    Posts
    258

    Default

    Hmm, this is a topic I have some views on, but first, take a looky at these.....

    http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9...ceded10ka9.png

    http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/1...cored10wy9.png

  16. #16
    Amateur
    Join Date
    29th December 2007
    Posts
    258

    Default

    SORRY!!!

    Do you think these ratings are fair, bearing mind the score of the game and what everyone did in the match. (Look at the actual stats.)

  17. #17
    Amateur
    Join Date
    25th June 2003
    Posts
    719

    Default

    One of the main problems is that the scoring system is not severe enough. Are there any 3s scored in regular play, let alone 2s and 1s? Same goes for the upper side of the scale, though to a lesser degree. 10s are rare, but possible.

    In a more severe ratings system, the 2s and 3s would be a bit more common. Variations would be more common and ratings would become more meaningful.

    Related is the interpretation of the numbers, that is, the inherent bias of a 1-10 ratings system. For one, there is no neutral stat. 6 is positive, 5 is negative. Or, if 6 is the neutral stat, there are far fewer positive ratings available than negative ratings.

    A transition to a more severe ratings system with more possible variations, along with a system with a better balanced neutral rating (that is, an odd amount of ratings!) is best.

  18. #18
    Amateur
    Join Date
    26th June 2001
    Posts
    746

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Masquerade:
    *sigh* 'to say that fining them 2 weeks wagesfor what they did is unfair is nothing short of laughable


    Well I for one would not only think it was unfair but utterly disgraceful if I was fined two weeks wages for a general mistake at work, as I expect would anyone. No doubt would you, if it happeened to you.

  19. #19
    Amateur
    Join Date
    22nd January 2008
    Posts
    138

    Default

    well when you consider the ramifications of that mistake can be quite dire if it were, say, in the final of a cup competition then 2 weeks wages as a fine can easily seem like a soft reaction. Considering certain trophies and their subsequent prize funds, not to mention possible qualification for other competitions through the success in another, are significantly higher than the sum total of two weeks wages of any player playing today I would see such a punishment as more than justified if not a bit soft and insufficient

  20. #20
    Third Team
    Join Date
    23rd December 2007
    Location
    Back in the real world
    Posts
    6,854

    Default

    I've got no probs with it as it stands, been the same for many many years...if it ain't broke and all that. If a players average is above 7 - he's doing well, 7.5 - very well, below 7 - you probably want shot of him.

    One thing I would like to see though, is the option to view a players stats since you took over only...useful if you move mid season.

    Presumably the last AI manager wasn't getting the most out of his players, therefore the stats for the whole season don't give a fair reflection of how they perform under your expert management...would serve to wipe the slate clean for everyone, to use the well worn management cliche.

  21. #21
    Reserves
    Join Date
    14th March 2004
    Location
    Phnom Penh!
    Posts
    10,368

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:
    I think a 1-10 rating is adequate, however I have a number of issues with the current way of calculating match ratings.

    1. GK's appear to be rated using the same formulae as outfield players so pass percentage for example plays far to high a role in determining a GK's match rating.

    GK's urgently need their own formulae for calculating match ratings.

    2. Errors. It appears that a player is only penalised for an error during a game if this error actually results in a goal. If the centre-half plays a sloppy ball that is intercepted by the opposition striker and then the GK bails him out with a wonder-save then the defender isn't marked down for his error. On the other hand, if a defender makes a key tackle as the opposition is in the act of scoring and the ball runs to a player who subsequently scores, it is classed as a poor clearance and a mistake and he is marked down accordingly.

    3. All defenders marked down when a late goal in sonceded. You are winning 5-0 in the dying minutes and the game is in the bag. Your centre-half is robbed when in posession and the attacker goes on to slot past your GK and the score ends 5-1. Youe left back who has scored 1 goal and created 2 others and been brilliant all day is marked down from a 9 to an 8 through no fault of his own and the other 2 defenders are marked down from an 8 to a 7.

    PENALISE MISTAKES, NOT SCORE-LINES.

    4. 10's. A hat-trick should generally mean a 10 score.

    5. Can't be bothered with any more .





    Agreed. The 1-10 system is no problem per se, but it needs to be more sensitive along these lines. Add also the factor of substitutes being disadvantaged. It sometimes causes me not to use my higher average-rating players as late substitutes - an issue that would not be a factor for a real manager.

  22. #22
    Moderator and Technical Support
    Join Date
    27th December 2003
    Location
    Half the lies I tell aren't true
    Posts
    33,201

    Default

    What a pleasnt change to have a reasonable discussion about a relevant FM topic.

    In summary I agree that the rating system is in essence a good one but could be better with some fine tuning. If SI had left the system as it was for 07 I suspect there wopuld have been less comment and it has come to attention because it has changed. We dont really know how the rating system works and it would be good to find out at least the basics of it to better aid understanding.

    I agree also with the GK ratings as these have always beena mystery.

  23. #23
    Amateur
    Join Date
    25th June 2003
    Posts
    719

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by bermybhoy:
    I've got no probs with it as it stands, been the same for many many years...if it ain't broke and all that. If a players average is above 7 - he's doing well, 7.5 - very well, below 7 - you probably want shot of him.

    But doesn't this show exactly what's wrong with the current implementation? You're saying that 7 is a reasonable performance, so there's only a three points left to the upper side. If you calculate the same scale downwards, then you get a minimum performance of a 4. 1-3 are simply unused.

    There are three things here: an implied average score of 6 which is not exactly in the middle of the allowed range (1-10); and the interpretation that a decent performance starts at 7. And last but not least, the ratings are not severe enough IMHO. Too many 6s and 7s and not enough 5s and 8s, let alone more extreme. This makes it too hard to judge the relative performances until halfway the season (longer term ratings seem more reasonable)

  24. #24
    Amateur
    Join Date
    15th October 2007
    Location
    Struggling in EPL with Merthyr Tydfil 8.0.2
    Posts
    536

    Default

    I like the 1-10 system. in fact, there are some newspapers that go only from 0 to 4, and 4 are quite unusual to see. The bigger problem is that 6-7-8 ratings are the 90% among all ratings if most games. I would like to start matches with a n/a, and then have a 5 or 6 for plain performances. I think that the average rating for an average player should be a 5.5 among all season, not 7. Why 5.5? Because it's the average value between 1 and 10. Of couse most consistent and quality players could have more than a 7, and some players will perform under 4 due to bad form, bad season for team... etc


    IRL, lots of matches have players that have bad performances. Your team can win 2-0, but maybe you have missed lots of passes, haven't marked well your rival, caught off of position all the time... That is a real performance of 3 or 4, but in fm2007 you easily will have a 7. Maybe it's because ratings for players are not best calculated. As it's been said, goals and assists are most important for ratings, and IRL it's also true for fans, but not for managers and people who understand football. A striker who has not scored neither assisted but all the time pressing defenders well, offering to midfielders, finding space, and not scroring just because keeper is quite inspired could easily have an 8, but FM will assign him a 6.

    That's IMHO because we lack post match data. We don't know how many saves have keepers made, how many rushes, or why the goals where scored (bad positioning of the keeper, a great shoot, a header from 4 yards...). For defenders we don't know if they were dribbled from rivals or if they marked well. We don't know if midfielders offered to mates when needed, if they made impossible passes or shoots... with those all things, ratings would be more accurate. Just an opinion, tough.

  25. #25
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Location
    The Wirral.
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by TeeWee:
    quote:
    Originally posted by bermybhoy:
    I've got no probs with it as it stands, been the same for many many years...if it ain't broke and all that. If a players average is above 7 - he's doing well, 7.5 - very well, below 7 - you probably want shot of him.

    But doesn't this show exactly what's wrong with the current implementation? You're saying that 7 is a reasonable performance, so there's only a three points left to the upper side. If you calculate the same scale downwards, then you get a minimum performance of a 4. 1-3 are simply unused.

    There are three things here: an implied average score of 6 which is not exactly in the middle of the allowed range (1-10); and the interpretation that a decent performance starts at 7. And last but not least, the ratings are not severe enough IMHO. Too many 6s and 7s and not enough 5s and 8s, let alone more extreme. This makes it too hard to judge the relative performances until halfway the season (longer term ratings seem more reasonable)


    Well it seems that the majority are in favour of staying with whole numbers (maybe it was just the use of 0.5s in pro evo that made me think of it) but TeeWees point is probably the best made so far. As i implied from the title, the scoring system makes very little effort to include the whole 1-10 spectrum, doing so would allow greater differentiation between "good" players and those that are performing at a world class level.

    Seaguls also made an excellent point, that perhaps the scoring of players performances is a little too subtle for a game to accurately calculate (they seem to have so much difficulty with transfers after all...) so perhaps merely reverting back to FM07 scoring would suffice?

    Perhaps something along these lines - Sky Sports Ratings - would be better - where a 5 is the neutral point and a keeper with a clean sheet is given a 6 due to a mistake, even tho it didn't lead to a goal (relating to jimbos post).

  26. #26
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    24th December 2005
    Location
    OTF: The Football Manager player's Mumsnet
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Ched:
    quote:
    Originally posted by TeeWee:
    quote:
    Originally posted by bermybhoy:
    I've got no probs with it as it stands, been the same for many many years...if it ain't broke and all that. If a players average is above 7 - he's doing well, 7.5 - very well, below 7 - you probably want shot of him.

    But doesn't this show exactly what's wrong with the current implementation? You're saying that 7 is a reasonable performance, so there's only a three points left to the upper side. If you calculate the same scale downwards, then you get a minimum performance of a 4. 1-3 are simply unused.

    There are three things here: an implied average score of 6 which is not exactly in the middle of the allowed range (1-10); and the interpretation that a decent performance starts at 7. And last but not least, the ratings are not severe enough IMHO. Too many 6s and 7s and not enough 5s and 8s, let alone more extreme. This makes it too hard to judge the relative performances until halfway the season (longer term ratings seem more reasonable)


    Well it seems that the majority are in favour of staying with whole numbers (maybe it was just the use of 0.5s in pro evo that made me think of it) but TeeWees point is probably the best made so far. As i implied from the title, the scoring system makes very little effort to include the whole 1-10 spectrum, doing so would allow greater differentiation between "good" players and those that are performing at a world class level.

    Seaguls also made an excellent point, that perhaps the scoring of players performances is a little too subtle for a game to accurately calculate (they seem to have so much difficulty with transfers after all...) so perhaps merely reverting back to FM07 scoring would suffice?

    Perhaps something along these lines - Sky Sports Ratings - would be better - where a 5 is the neutral point and a keeper with a clean sheet is given a 6 due to a mistake, even tho it didn't lead to a goal (relating to jimbos post).


    Good points indeed from Ched and TeeWee.

    Sky Sports' method of rating players is unusual - 5 as a neutral point is completely different to the vast majority of the print media, whom use 6 or 7 as 'neutral' (unless they are rating Wayne Rooney or Steven Gerrard, where 8 appears to be the benchmark). However - they've already introduced a major source of error - in Ched's linked example SWP only receives a score of 4 for being the crime of being injured after 4 minutes and substituted at 29!

    For this system to work - and it could work in print and in FM2010, say - to be truly neutral the player must be judged on what they did in the time they had - where 5 is "functional", any score above is relative to how positive their impact was and below takes into account mistakes.

    FM players are, no doubt, readers of newspapers, teletext and various websites and are used to a culture where a rating of 6 denotes an 'average' performance and a rating below 4 depends on how much the sub-editor turning out the scores hates the player in question.

    For SI to adopt the "5-is-neutral" approach would require a significant culture change for FM gamers; could the majority of FM gamers appreciate that a rating of 6.25 for a season actually was a reasonably good rating? For people used to over a decade of CM/FM seeing that rating would mean "Sell him now - he can't cope at this level".

    I agree that the unused ratings are, to be frank, a waste of space. In FM07 a rating of 1,2 or 3 just means that the player has played in a team that got an absolute pasting of 4-0 or 5-0. It doesn't necessarily indicate how bad they were - even if they would have got a 6 in a 0-0 draw, they are dragged down by the team's performance. That may require a bit of tweaking.

  27. #27
    Amateur
    Join Date
    14th January 2008
    Location
    Anywhere you want me babe
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Has anyone even seen a 10 rating in fm08? I have seen a player score 5 goals against chelsea in the epl, and still get a 9!

    Clearly this is another area that si have messed up.

  28. #28
    Youth Team
    Join Date
    21st January 2005
    Location
    I used to chase eggs. Now I am just trying not to respond to eegits.
    Posts
    5,002

    Default

    I have seen 10 ratings.

    It was for the following though.

    Hat-trick for a GK.

    Hat-trick and 2 assists for a winger.

    4 goals for a striker.

    Doesn't happen often enough though.

  29. #29
    Amateur
    Join Date
    23rd October 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    215

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by bermybhoy:
    I've got no probs with it as it stands, been the same for many many years...if it ain't broke and all that. If a players average is above 7 - he's doing well, 7.5 - very well, below 7 - you probably want shot of him.

    One thing I would like to see though, is the option to view a players stats since you took over only...useful if you move mid season.


    Agreed, and good idea.

    For those of us who have played FM since the CM days, the current scoring system works well and we know how to react of a player gets a succession of 6's (or an average below 7) and vice versa with higher scores.

    Maybe the system just needs tinkering with to overcome the examples seen above.

    I like the mid-season average under your management idea. Nice one.

  30. #30
    Third Team
    Join Date
    23rd December 2007
    Location
    Back in the real world
    Posts
    6,854

    Default

    Cheers Achilles Elbow. While I get where Ched and Teewee are coming from, it would be a massive adjustment to suddenly find that 5 (or is it 6...5.5 is actually in the middle of 1-10, confusing matters further) means 'decent'.

    As for players having their rating unreasonably boosted by scoring, that's a huge grey area in real life anyway, think of how much criticism someone like Inzaghi (or Kris Boyd indeed) takes for his lack of contribution other than scoring...but if he misses a load of open goals, doesn't pass to a team mate all night yet scores 2 goals...surely still a MoM performance?

    Leading to another point, should (or indeed are they already?) rating be boosted for good performances by 'average' players against better teams, even if they lose? Conversely, do say premiership players deserve 8's and 9's for beating a non-league side 4-0....surely expected of them?

  31. #31
    arrogantio
    Guest

    Default

    The simple solution is to introduce decimal points, introducing more complexity without deviating from the familiar concept of a 1-10 rating normalised on 6/7 which has been around for over a decade in FM and is pretty widely used in media.

    Two ways of doing this:

    Firstly, simply adding half points to the scale - for example, a player who came on and did ok would be able to get a 6.5 rather than a 6 or 7 and a player who did the simple things very well or had an excellent performance marred by one bad miss would get a 7.5 rather than a 7 or 8.
    A 20 point scale with only 10 of the points used regularly is more precise than a 10 point scale with only 5 points used regularly.
    It's also better than what some people here seem to be suggesting, which is a 10 point scale with all 10 points used - which if normalised around the 5/10 mark might to be seen to imply that a player having a decent game put in only 50% of the performance they were capable of

    Secondly, you could add two decimal places and calculate detailed ratings (see for example BBC Sport Player Rater) which would be useful in working out more precisely which players' impact in an even game was most and least noticeable, and whether a player's 7.35 performance is consistent with their season average of 7.23. I suspect the underlying formula which SI use to assign ratings could be adapted to display this.

  32. #32
    Amateur
    Join Date
    26th October 2007
    Location
    The vicinity of an area adjacent to a location...
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Personally iv just seen norwich's keeper Dave Marshal concede 3 against me and get a 9 cos he pulled off some amazing saves to keep the score down, seems to be pretty inconsistant.

    I have more of a problem with ratings for my central midfielders, even if they are world class players they always seem to get 6's or 7's. Although despite this they seem to play well enough in the match engine.

    And iv only once seen a 10 in fm08 and that was a player who slammed 4 past me and also got 3 assists (yeah i got boooooomed 7-3) lol

  33. #33
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Location
    The Wirral.
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Scott Jackson:
    Personally iv just seen norwich's keeper Dave Marshal concede 3 against me and get a 9 cos he pulled off some amazing saves to keep the score down, seems to be pretty inconsistant.

    I have more of a problem with ratings for my central midfielders, even if they are world class players they always seem to get 6's or 7's. Although despite this they seem to play well enough in the match engine.

    And iv only once seen a 10 in fm08 and that was a player who slammed 4 past me and also got 3 assists (yeah i got boooooomed 7-3) lol


    Yeah, since starting this thread, i've seen opposition keepers get MOM twice, despite conceding 2 or 3 goals.

    Although whats irritating me off more, is that my youth signings are getting 6s as i;m using them as subs, and the fans hate me for signing them! Idiots.

  34. #34
    Amateur
    Join Date
    25th March 2006
    Location
    8th in The Conference
    Posts
    462

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Tom Leeburn:
    Has anyone even seen a 10 rating in fm08? I have seen a player score 5 goals against chelsea in the epl, and still get a 9!

    Clearly this is another area that si have messed up.


    There is another thread (I can't find the thing now to link to it) where somebody posted a screenshot where his team had a big win and virtually every outfield player
    was awarded a 10.The keeper got an 8 I think while the opposition were awarded 1's,2's and 3's (except the second half subs who earned 6's).

    This of course may simply be a rare example of one team's superiority over another's ineptitude and the player ratings simply reflected that.But I can't recall ever seeing
    so many players on one team receive 10's for their performances in a real life game.

    I had a similar experience with my own team (with a rare big win and lots of 10's) on FM06 and thought the ratings were a bit skewed then.It was as if the calculations were
    being 'rounded up' (for want of a better phrase) to reflect the difference between the two teams.

  35. #35
    Amateur
    Join Date
    15th October 2007
    Location
    Struggling in EPL with Merthyr Tydfil 8.0.2
    Posts
    536

    Default

    I think that a hattrick does not involve a 10 per se. If a player scores 3 rebounds but misses some clear opportunities, concedes a penalty, scores an own-goal and gets sent off, he barely deserves a 7. In most cases, a hattrick should give a 9, and maybe a 10 if he missed few clear opportunities, he passed well, made good runs...

    I still believe that the problem is that 7 is the average rating, while it should be 5.5, having a greater spectrum of available ratings. Of course lots of managers will complaint, but if all players in the game have ratings around 5.5, they can be used quick. Of course, in fm2009, not in a patch for 2008 of people will get mad

  36. #36
    Youth Team
    Join Date
    21st January 2005
    Location
    I used to chase eggs. Now I am just trying not to respond to eegits.
    Posts
    5,002

  37. #37
    Amateur
    Join Date
    31st May 2007
    Posts
    150

    Default

    I think it should be changed so that ratings of 1,2 and 3 disappear and 4 becomes the new 1.
    If one of my players performs badly we already have 6 (underperform), 5 (badly) and 4 (abysmally) so why we need varying degrees of abysmal is beyond me.
    I'd prefer more info as to whether a a 7 is a 7.4 or a 6.6 personally and this would go some way towards that.
    There is also a case for losing the 10 rating as well. It's rarely seen (in my games anyway) and is really just 9 with an extra goal tagged on.

  38. #38
    Youth Team
    Join Date
    21st January 2005
    Location
    I used to chase eggs. Now I am just trying not to respond to eegits.
    Posts
    5,002

    Default

    quote:
    we already have 6 (underperform),


    In the past, 6 has equated to underperform.

    Now it is average.

  39. #39
    International Star Player
    Join Date
    27th December 2001
    Posts
    41,498

    Default

    In previous versions of FM player ratings for strikers were tied in to shots on goal. If a striker forced 5 saves form the keeper he’d generally get a good match rating. He could hit 5 shots form 35 yards which all rolled into the keeper’s hands and he’d receive a good rating because he’d got all his shots on target. Likewise he could have 5 one on ones and despite not scoring any of them, would receive a good rating because he’d ‘tested' the keeper.

    Now the opposite is true, whereas there’s a magical number of shots you’re allowed to have on target before the game interprets it as ‘well you had x many chances and didn’t score so you must have had a bad game’.

    This is particularly bad for central midfielders, since their ratings are downgraded due to the nature of their chances being less clear cut than that of the strikers. A central midfielder can have 5 shots on goal, all of which are brilliantly tipped over the bar by the keeper, but in FM terms 5 shots on target without a goal = ‘bad’ performance.

    I’ve set up a good goal scoring tactic which involves my centre half getting a lot of goals from headers. Played a game recently where we kept a clean sheet and he had a blinder, winning more tackles, headers and interceptions than any other player on the pitch. However, he received the lowest match rating in the team because he’d had 6 shots on goal from corners and hadn’t scored.

  40. #40
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Location
    The Wirral.
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:
    quote:
    we already have 6 (underperform),


    In the past, 6 has equated to underperform.

    Now it is average.


    In board confidence, the fans consider a 6 to be underperforming.

    E.g. i signed a young argentine, used him only as a sub, he got a couple of 7s, an 8 but mostly 6s and the fans hated him. So whilst it may be that a 6=average to us, the game treats it as underperforming.

  41. #41
    Youth Team
    Join Date
    21st January 2005
    Location
    I used to chase eggs. Now I am just trying not to respond to eegits.
    Posts
    5,002

    Default

    I hadn't really considered that.

    Saying that though, let me give you a little example how how much consideration we, (as managers), should give to what the fans think of the players at the club.

    I'm a Barnet fan and at the beginning on the season we signed a young midfielder called Max Porter from some carp non-league team. He started the season on the bench and looked adequate if not outstanding when he featured early on in the season. Despite that, the "boo boys" at the club decided that he isn't good enough and the fans messageboard was full of "het him out" and he didn't recieve a great reception at games. Then, (due to injuries and suspensions), he played about a months worth of games on the right flank. He looked awful and even I decided that he wasn't up to the job. I thought that he would just be dropped when other players were fit and we would never hear from him again.

    Well he was dropped when better players became available again by Paul Fairclough, (manager), kept him at the club and he was always on the bench. For the last 6 weeks or so, he has been back in the starting line-up, this time at righ-back, (again due to injuries), and has quite simply been a revelation.

    What is the moral of the strory.

    Fans, (including me), know feck all. It's our job to turn up and scream and shout and eat pies that burn your mouth, and it's the managers job to decide who is good enough to do what on the pitch.

    It's as simple as that.

  42. #42
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Location
    The Wirral.
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Fair point jimbo, not so sure the board take as much notice of fans as they do in FM, but something to consider.

    Just seem something relevant to this here.

  43. #43
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    16th December 2006
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,555

    Default

    Goalies: I think there should be an option for giving a 0 if the player doesn't do anything - like e.g. our national sports paper does. No work = you get a 0, and it doesn't count in your season average.

  44. #44
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Location
    The Wirral.
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by emgergo:
    Goalies: I think there should be an option for giving a 0 if the player doesn't do anything - like e.g. our national sports paper does. No work = you get a 0, and it doesn't count in your season average.


    Perhaps something like this could be incorporated for subs? I don't feel that a 6, for a player who has had 3minutes of play, should be included in his season average (and in supporters assessment of him).

  45. #45
    Third Team
    Join Date
    24th February 2005
    Location
    FMS 2007 Writer of the Year
    Posts
    9,933

    Default

    Gazzetto dello Sport agrees, they tend to give " - " for performances under about 10-15 minutes, basically the equivalent of "n/a".

    If I brought a guy on at the hour, surely that's enough time for him to make a mark either positive or negative. But if I brought him on at the death, the only way I could imagine him getting a rating is if he scored a goal, or conceded a penalty.

  46. #46
    Third Team
    Join Date
    24th February 2005
    Location
    FMS 2007 Writer of the Year
    Posts
    9,933

    Default

    While we're on the topic, I think .5's would be a nice touch, so we'd have, say:

    5.5 = underperformed
    6.0 = slightly unimpressive
    6.5 = average
    7.0 = slightly above average
    7.5 = performed well

  47. #47
    Third Team
    Join Date
    23rd December 2007
    Location
    Back in the real world
    Posts
    6,854

    Default

    I could swear that in previous versions that short sub appearances weren't included in a players average score...can anyone with a better memory confirm? Or advise why it was changed? Doesn't make sense to 'penalise' a player by including in their average a 6 gained in a 20-secs from time time-wasting move, does it?

  48. #48
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    16th December 2006
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,555

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Ched:
    quote:
    Originally posted by emgergo:
    Goalies: I think there should be an option for giving a 0 if the player doesn't do anything - like e.g. our national sports paper does. No work = you get a 0, and it doesn't count in your season average.


    Perhaps something like this could be incorporated for subs? I don't feel that a 6, for a player who has had 3minutes of play, should be included in his season average (and in supporters assessment of him).


    Agreed, and the same paper or as Amaroq said, La Gazzetta Dello Sport does this too. It's an automatic "-" for players who were subbed after the 60th minute here, but I think the Gazzetta's system is better.

  49. #49
    Amateur
    Join Date
    15th October 2007
    Location
    Struggling in EPL with Merthyr Tydfil 8.0.2
    Posts
    536

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Amaroq:
    While we're on the topic, I think .5's would be a nice touch, so we'd have, say:

    5.5 = underperformed
    6.0 = slightly unimpressive
    6.5 = average
    7.0 = slightly above average
    7.5 = performed well


    And then also

    5.0 = worse than underperformance
    4.5 = worse than worse than underperformance
    4.0 = bad
    3.5 = really bad
    3.0 = reallr really bad
    2.5 = afwul
    2.0 = amazingly awful
    1.5 = worst performance in the league
    1.0 = worst performance in the planet
    0.5 = worst performance in the universe




    Using half points is not the best solution IMHO. 5.5 should be the average (1 the worst + 10 the best / 2 = 5.5). So players should start with a 5 (it's only an opinion), then if they don't do anything in the match, end with a 5. But if they lose tackles, if they miss passes, if thay don't help mates, then assign them a lower rating.

    Every league should have an average rating of 5.5. If you thing that average should be a 6.5, then have ratings between 3 and 10.

  50. #50
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Location
    The Wirral.
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Amaroq:
    While we're on the topic, I think .5's would be a nice touch, so we'd have, say:

    5.5 = underperformed
    6.0 = slightly unimpressive
    6.5 = average
    7.0 = slightly above average
    7.5 = performed well


    Glad some people agree with the 0.5s.
    I just feel it would add some resolution to the scoring, as it stands, if i win a game 1-0, there's a whole lot of 7s, and 8 for the goalscorer and i have little idea who played especially well.

  51. #51
    Amateur
    Join Date
    9th April 2003
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Totally agree with Cheds initial post bout keepers ratings, they are quite unfair.Keepers always get blamed ratings-wise for goals even if they can do nothing about them. Defenders on the other hand never get the blame. How many times have you seen one of your defenders commit a shocking error which costs you the game only to see them rewarded with a 7 and the poor keeper getting a 6? It happens a lot imho.

    Also its ok saying dont rely on the ratings, use your judgement but unless you can actually sit throught the whole 90 minutes you are relying on the ratings heavily for guidance.

  52. #52
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Location
    The Wirral.
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Jon French:
    Also its ok saying dont rely on the ratings, use your judgement but unless you can actually sit throught the whole 90 minutes you are relying on the ratings heavily for guidance.


    Excellent point - what use are the ratings if they aren't representative of the players performance?

  53. #53
    Amateur
    Join Date
    25th June 2003
    Posts
    719

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Amaroq:
    While we're on the topic, I think .5's would be a nice touch, so we'd have, say:

    5.5 = underperformed
    6.0 = slightly unimpressive
    6.5 = average
    7.0 = slightly above average
    7.5 = performed well

    half points would add unnecessary resolution to the ratings. The resolution is available, but simply unused! For the complete scale to be used, the ratings should become more severe, on both ends of the scale. Unused points are wasted points, adding half points to a rating only adds more wasted points! Better to utilize the full scale.

    Examples:
    First minute red card for unprofessional behaviour: 1
    Unable to contain opposing winger as a fullback, where all the assists come from his side of the pitch, no positive contribution at all, always losing the ball: 1
    Striker is invisible, barely a shot on goal, static and not creating chances for himself or others, basically making your side play with one man down: 2
    DMC who allows the the opposing midfield to spray passes which leads to goals: 2 or 3
    Centerback who makes a mistake leading to a goal: 4
    Rather unremarkable play, on the wrong side of neutral: 5
    Rather unremarkable play, on the right side of neutral: 6
    AMC with the killer deciding through ball: 7
    Winger outplaying the fullback, always creating danger and chances, getting his runs and crosses in: 8
    DC completely shutting down the danger man for the entire game, while also distributing the ball quickly and accurately: 9
    The rare days that every touch of the ball is golden, every play is good and effective: 10

    I realise, this turns a 5.5 to an average seasonwide performance. This is ok and in other fields, a 5.5 or 6 is a pass and I think this should be so in FM too. I don't know why this should be 6.5 or 7 in FM-world.

  54. #54
    Amateur
    Join Date
    5th May 2006
    Location
    Paris FC 2000, about to start our first Ligue 2 campaign!
    Posts
    910

    Default

    My thought on the goalkeepers issue is, if a keeper does nothing for the whole game, then has to make a save if he does his job and makes a save even tho' he has been not involved in the game then it's worth noting. Any top keeper needs 100% concentration for 90mins, not just 60 or 45.

  55. #55
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Location
    The Wirral.
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by Queen of the Stevenage:
    My thought on the goalkeepers issue is, if a keeper does nothing for the whole game, then has to make a save if he does his job and makes a save even tho' he has been not involved in the game then it's worth noting. Any top keeper needs 100% concentration for 90mins, not just 60 or 45.


    But what about when he doesn't make a save? In the current state, a GK gets a 7 or 8 if his team beat the opp 4-0 even if he didn't touch the ball.

  56. #56
    Amateur
    Join Date
    15th October 2007
    Location
    Struggling in EPL with Merthyr Tydfil 8.0.2
    Posts
    536

    Default

    quote:
    Originally posted by TeeWee:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Amaroq:
    While we're on the topic, I think .5's would be a nice touch, so we'd have, say:

    5.5 = underperformed
    6.0 = slightly unimpressive
    6.5 = average
    7.0 = slightly above average
    7.5 = performed well

    half points would add unnecessary resolution to the ratings. The resolution is available, but simply unused! For the complete scale to be used, the ratings should become more severe, on both ends of the scale. Unused points are wasted points, adding half points to a rating only adds more wasted points! Better to utilize the full scale.

    Examples:
    First minute red card for unprofessional behaviour: 1
    Unable to contain opposing winger as a fullback, where all the assists come from his side of the pitch, no positive contribution at all, always losing the ball: 1
    Striker is invisible, barely a shot on goal, static and not creating chances for himself or others, basically making your side play with one man down: 2
    DMC who allows the the opposing midfield to spray passes which leads to goals: 2 or 3
    Centerback who makes a mistake leading to a goal: 4
    Rather unremarkable play, on the wrong side of neutral: 5
    Rather unremarkable play, on the right side of neutral: 6
    AMC with the killer deciding through ball: 7
    Winger outplaying the fullback, always creating danger and chances, getting his runs and crosses in: 8
    DC completely shutting down the danger man for the entire game, while also distributing the ball quickly and accurately: 9
    The rare days that every touch of the ball is golden, every play is good and effective: 10

    I realise, this turns a 5.5 to an average seasonwide performance. This is ok and in other fields, a 5.5 or 6 is a pass and I think this should be so in FM too. I don't know why this should be 6.5 or 7 in FM-world.

    I think in a similar way! IRL there are lots of performances deserving 1-3. In fm is not possible to see that unless team loses by a huge amount or the player scores a couple of own goals, allows a penalty and gets booked.

Closed Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts