the non offensive players - low match ratings?!

[flauta kicma]

hello

want to say, if your strikers scores he will get huge match rating, if your CB score from corner or your AM got assist - every of this guys will get decent, fine ratings

but what with full backs, MC's when they are oftenly in tougher positions to score or assist, what with your DM'c...?

they all will get lower match ratings...

for example

why is not possible to honour tackles, etc. to DMC for match rating like it is shoots on goals for forwards?

particularly, thats mean that the same (or basicaly same) average ratings will have mascherano and let's say - clement from psg (solid but limited player)

okay, i know that they possiblly (!!or this game wouldnt have any sense) they got different impact on team, other players, reputation BUT bassically its the same if i'm gonna to buy world class MC's or some fair player (relating in to the ratings)

in, CM 01/02 everything was diiffeerent..

goals were not major factor in match ratings.... so some full back without assist could have 9, etc....

any thoughts guys?

i'm saying all of this in constructive manner because it's strange that if player dont score he'll get 6.9 (and yeah by wins, ratings are getting little higher)

sorry for my bad english

cheers from croatia

[lyw_85]

You are true to a certain extent.

A goal, apart from a penalty, will immediately give the player a rating of 7.0 +.

However, I have a few games where my defender had 20 headers attempted and 20 successful headers, with 5 of them being key. He had a rating of 7.9

So, non offensive players still can get higher match ratings, its just in a different way.

[TheUnderdog]

To add, if a defensive player gives away a penalty, the player's rating goes to pieces regardless of how he was playing previously of even after. Get's a bit frustrating when his morale takes a kicking from a poor performance when he didn't really deserve it.

[Goobertron]

Yeah i've never liked how the player ratings have worked. In real life a striker could score a hattrick but you still wouldn't give him more than a 7.0 because he didnt contribute anything else. In FM he'll get at least a 9.0.

I've always thought it was far too hard to see an MC type player get high ratings unless he gets and assist or a goal. Hard work, takling, general good passing, movement etc. etc. just dont get rewarded.

[Cleon]

Yeah i've never liked how the player ratings have worked. In real life a striker could score a hattrick but you still wouldn't give him more than a 7.0 because he didnt contribute anything else. In FM he'll get at least a 9.0.

I've always thought it was far too hard to see an MC type player get high ratings unless he gets and assist or a goal. Hard work, takling, general good passing, movement etc. etc. just dont get rewarded.

Jermain Defoe scored 5 for Spurs yesterday and suddenly he's the best striker England as got. It's much easier for an attacking player to steal the headlines, this happens all the time in real life. For example when was the last time you read a paper headline praising someone who made 3 crucial interceptions? Or pressed all game and was a real midfield general and mopping up through balls? Id say rare if at all. However on a daily basis we see headlines about attacking players. So from what you say I don't see FM differing too much.

On FM a player can easily get high ratings whether hes an attacker or defensive minded player. Someone who scores will probably get a high rating as he's done something a bit extra. Scoring isn't as easy as people think, if it was you'd all be FM masters. But someone defensive who just does his normal job might just get a more 'normal' rating. However if that player makes crucial tackles, interceptions, assists etc then he will get a better rating.

Look at these rating, my defensive players ratings don't differ that drastic compared to attacking players. It's all in the settings and what role you expect them to be doing.

[Seule]

You'll also note in RL Defoe got 5 goals, but did he get MoM?