Player Match ratings

How do the player ratings work in a match? They never seem to be below 6.0.

I have just lost a match 6-1 yet my team average rating is 6.23.

In the old FM player ratings used to vary more.

I think I've seen a player on my team get less than a 6 only once in a season and a half. Having said that I finished second in my first season and I'm currently unbeaten in all matches so far in January of my second season - Given that run it's hard to see a player getting less than a 6. (I know it's not a hard and fast rule mind you, but still..)

I don't really pay too much attention to the opposition ratings as long as I'm doing well but will keep an eye on them for now. I would agree that it doesn't seem to drop below a 6 as much as in previous games, based purely on my experience of FM14.

Players only tend score below 6.0 when they make a massive mistake like giving away a penalty and they already had a fairly poor rating beforehand (like 6.5 or lower) or they make multiple mistakes over the course of the match with at least one of them leading to a goal so it's not that common but it can definitely happen on occasion. I've found that goalkeepers and defenders are more likely to score below a 6 because their mistakes are usually much more costly compared to midfielders and strikers.

In previous FMs I used to use the average rating as a guide to the players quality as it used to vary much more. Now I just ignore as they all seem to be very similar.

6.9 is the average is it not?

7+ for good games,

6.1 for awful games,

6.6 for average games where no one performed,

6.9 where both teams do squat.

Seems to be the general guide.

6.9 is the average is it not?

7+ for good games,

6.1 for awful games,

6.6 for average games where no one performed,

6.9 where both teams do squat.

Seems to be the general guide.

That's what I don't understand, on scale of 1 to 10 why only use a range of 6 to 7.

The average is 6.7 I'm pretty sure because that's what the player start the game with. So you could say anything above that is a player doing well and anything below that is them underperforming.

I know it is 6.7 because if you check team ratings a couple of minutes after kick-off when ratings are first 'announced', all players of both teams will have 6.7 unless there was already an early goal which would probably affect that.

The average is 6.7 I'm pretty sure because that's what the player start the game with. So you could say anything above that is a player doing well and anything below that is them underperforming.

I know it is 6.7 because if you check team ratings a couple of minutes after kick-off when ratings are first 'announced', all players of both teams will have 6.7 unless there was already an early goal which would probably affect that.

I used 6.9 because that seems to be the average in a draw for both teams. But a 6.7 or 6.6 is where you lose but neither team stood out.

Just from my experience though.

I hear you but I'm certain 6.7 is THE average.

I think it's based real life. People IRL just gravitate towards 6 and 7.

If you watch any TV shows like Come Dine with Me (casual cooking competition show, everyone scores each other)

I see in that, if they do really bad they usually get a 5. Average is 6-7. Really good is 8. 9-10 doesn;t show up alot.

As other have said, 6.7 is the average.

At the start of a match all players are 6.7 so it makes sense that 6.7 is the average.

I have also seen players at 4.something - players can get VERY LOW ratings if they make a succession of mistakes.

Had a few low ratings before, previously my left FB would receive one a few times a seasons due to various mistakes in the same match

I rarely got below 6, but sometimes my CB who made horrible mistake leading to goal gets around 4 - 5. To be honest though i don't like the rating of the match, sometimes my players that missed many key tackle, key headers, pass straight to opponent, missed open chance, etc etc still can get 7+ if they do score from set piece, score from penalty, and made an accidentally assist.

I got Petr Cech to get a 1.1 rating when I was messing about once, he had to concede 25 goals for that though...

My back entire back four had a sub-6.0 rating in a recent 5-0 drubbing. I kept them in the whole game (just to make the aggressive team talk easier) and fined them all two weeks wages for it too... felt glorious.

Just finished a pre season game with Man U v A Madrid.

De Gea had to face 2 shots on target, 1 of which they scored. He had 1 save then. Rating 7.1

Oblak had to face 12 on target, 1 of which I scored. He saved 11. Rating 6.7

How does that work?

Just finished a pre season game with Man U v A Madrid.

De Gea had to face 2 shots on target, 1 of which they scored. He had 1 save then. Rating 7.1

Oblak had to face 12 on target, 1 of which I scored. He saved 11. Rating 6.7

How does that work?

I agree that goalkeeper ratings are difficult to comprehend. I usually don't agree with them. But it could be that De Gea had a very high pass completion or got to many balls before they could make the shot...

I recently won 1-0 in a match where I was absolutely dominated (playing in the Swiss League currently). I had to face 29 shots, thereof 16 on target and 8(!) CCC. My keeper played the match of his life. Rating? 6.8.

That's what I don't understand, on scale of 1 to 10 why only use a range of 6 to 7.

The whole scale is used. I have at least one player get 9.0 nearly every game and the occasional 10.0. Also had a player get a 4.8 the other day and seen opposition players get less.

I'd like match ratings to be looked at. I don't think a players overall match rating should be absolutely hammered if they make ONE bad mistake. That would mean that, if you are influenced by match ratings when you make substitutions, you might take off somebody who made one bad mistake that led to a goal, but otherwise had a perfectly fine game. Not realistic in my view. If somebody continues to have a nightmare, then fair enough, but I don't think that one incident should so drastically effect their overall match rating.

I'd like match ratings to be looked at. I don't think a players overall match rating should be absolutely hammered if they make ONE bad mistake. That would mean that, if you are influenced by match ratings when you make substitutions, you might take off somebody who made one bad mistake that led to a goal, but otherwise had a perfectly fine game. Not realistic in my view. If somebody continues to have a nightmare, then fair enough, but I don't think that one incident should so drastically effect their overall match rating.

If you do that then you have to reduce the bonus they get for scoring/assisting a goal.

6.7 cant be the average. It's gotta be 6.8. Thats what shows for all my players once the match has been running for long enough to show the ratings.

No, the earliest match ratings are shown for a game (usually a few minutes into a game), you'll see that they all have 6.7 unless an early goal or mistake has been made in the opening minutes.

Hence 6.7 must be THE most exact 'average' but obviously 6.8 is nothing stellar and only ever slightly above average which means it is still quite average.

Just finished a pre season game with Man U v A Madrid.

De Gea had to face 2 shots on target, 1 of which they scored. He had 1 save then. Rating 7.1

Oblak had to face 12 on target, 1 of which I scored. He saved 11. Rating 6.7

How does that work?

Its very rare that I get any higher than 7 for any goalkeeping display