I don't Understand Player Ratings

Hi, the evaluation takes into account the following parameters:

- Final result, Did you lose the match?
- Player in the game, I only see about 20 passes, too little to give a more than sufficient evaluation.
- Who was the opponent? 
- How did the opponent who had to mark play?

4 hours ago, Sparacello said:

Hi, the evaluation takes into account the following parameters:

- Final result, Did you lose the match?
- Player in the game, I only see about 20 passes, too little to give a more than sufficient evaluation.
- Who was the opponent? 
- How did the opponent who had to mark play?

Ignore the second screenshot, I could not amend the post. 

The rating I am referring to is in the first screenshot.

- The final result effects the ratings of all players, so this doesn't really tell me why Jota received a lower rating
- Jota had 74 passes (98%)
- I play 5 at the back so they do not have set players to mark.

Would like not be made easier if you could see how many mistakes a player made through 'player statistics' at half/full time? Or even better, if there was a short summary explaining how the player did.

On the subject of mistakes...when you criticise a players performance, one of the options is 'you made too many mistakes in the last game'. However, it's not possible to see this stat, so how can one decide if this is the correct choice of criticism? 

Totally agree with OP, with data hub being added this was a great opportunity to get some insight here. Unfortunately it is not. 

 

I think that since they changed how match ratings work (it was one of the new features last year or two years ago), they got harsher. Basically, before if player had an average game, where he doesn't do much, but also doesn't make any mistakes or anything, he'd get something around 6.7. Now, the same performance ends with 6.3. You can even see this in game, where 6.3 rating is described as "Playing okay" or something like that. I've had defenders finishing games with such ratings even if we completely dominated the match and the opponent didn't even had a shot on target, so naturally there wasn't much to do for my CBs. I think it's a bit unfair, since they start with higher rating so it looks like they played badly.

A 6.3 would largely just be performing average. While the game does have a player rating system keep in mind that there are no universal rules for player ratings across the sport. There's no fixed boundaries but in FM terms anything below a 6.0 is an indicator of a bad game and anything above a 7.0 is indicator of a decent game (progressively getting better as the number increases). If you feel there are instances where a player is doing well but getting low ratings we can take a look into that specifically but we would need a pkm for that. A guide on how to upload files is available here: How to Add PKMs, Rec Files and Crash Dumps Files to Posts - Instructions and Notes - Sports Interactive Community (sigames.com)

 

On 05/12/2021 at 20:38, Michael Sant said:

A 6.3 would largely just be performing average. While the game does have a player rating system keep in mind that there are no universal rules for player ratings across the sport. There's no fixed boundaries but in FM terms anything below a 6.0 is an indicator of a bad game and anything above a 7.0 is indicator of a decent game (progressively getting better as the number increases). If you feel there are instances where a player is doing well but getting low ratings we can take a look into that specifically but we would need a pkm for that. A guide on how to upload files is available here: How to Add PKMs, Rec Files and Crash Dumps Files to Posts - Instructions and Notes - Sports Interactive Community (sigames.com)

 

I can't agree on this and there is a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. For example, coaches and media seem to recognise 'poor form' as anything below 6.6. Same goes for fans and the board being disappointed with player performances under the 'club vision' tab, again if form is below 6.6.

RE. "If you feel there are instances where a player is doing well but getting low ratings we can take a look into that specifically but we would need a pkm for that". This isn't really my issue, I'm not questioning the ratings as such, more so I need more information with regards to why players receive ratings.

It goes back to my initial point...how can you improve a players performance if you're not aware of what they're doing wrong? I think simply adding the 'mistakes' stat to the player stats would be a big help, also the 'possession lost' stat. These stats are far too difficult to find given their importance.