It's so annoying that 10.3 requires a CB to be tall

[bleventozturk]

I feel that SFraser is still over complicating.

I tend to agree with the OP, that there seems to be something wrong with the ratings. There always have been problems in previous editions of FM, as deejay10 so rightly points out, and I can't help feeling that this is simply another example.

Absolutely. Every FM had problems with match ratings, and this year's problem is the short CB not winning headers being rated unfairly. The fact that this specific issue was never the case in previous FM is proof enough that something is wrong with the CB ratings in FM2010-10.3.

What SFraser is trying to do is finding a workaround, just like we had to do for AM C's in some of the previous FM's. There were some games in the past where you had to organize your whole attack through your AM C (so that he will touch the ball as much as possible), otherwise he would always get low ratings. The present problem is a similar one. This time the headers for CB's are overrated, and the workaround is to find a tactic where your short CB will simply hide from those high balls. Ideally the tackles, interceptions, CB moving with the ball and making a good pass, etc. should be equally important to headers, then a short, less physical CB with good technical skills and pace&agility would still get good ratings.

I just don't like it that in every FM something is broke with the rating system and we end up spending time on finding a workaround. And it is just funny how some people always keep trying to justify the issue. When AM C's were getting low ratings unless you make them use every set piece, give the ball to them in eery attack, etc., I remember some people were saying "of course you have to work your attack always through your AM C, that's the only purpose of having an AM C, if you don't use him like that it is fair that he gets low ratings, bla bla bla". What SFraser is suggesting is just a workaround, nothing more (and I tried using my short CB as cover, he's still getting lower ratings than his tall CB partner). Maybe it will work if you set almost your whole team (like SFraser suggested) to suit the short CB, but like I said, this is nothing but a workaround, to cover for the flaw in rating system.

[Rupal]

One 'fix' for AMCs, I seem to remember, was briefly moving them to a wide position in about the 85th minute which raised their ratings by at least 1 clear point at the end of the match or some manoeuvre like that. I wonder if the problem with DCs could possibly be 'solved' in a similar fashion by sticking them at fullback for a short period before the end of the match?

[nev147]

One 'fix' for AMCs, I seem to remember, was briefly moving them to a wide position in about the 85th minute which raised their ratings by at least 1 clear point at the end of the match or some manoeuvre like that. I wonder if the problem with DCs could possibly be 'solved' in a similar fashion by sticking them at fullback for a short period before the end of the match?

That does not sound like a bad shout!

[bleventozturk]

One 'fix' for AMCs, I seem to remember, was briefly moving them to a wide position in about the 85th minute which raised their ratings by at least 1 clear point at the end of the match or some manoeuvre like that. I wonder if the problem with DCs could possibly be 'solved' in a similar fashion by sticking them at fullback for a short period before the end of the match?

It won't work like that any more in FM2010, bc that part of the code is already fixed (which is good). If you change a players' position in 85th minute, the rating system will carry his low rating to his new position, and unless he does something extraordinary in that 5 remaining minutes his low rating will stay the same.

And to be honest, that would still not be a real solution, bc after all AI can't do the same. That's why I hate workarounds so much. They only apply to your team. Even if SFrasors special configuration is helping his short CB to get better ratings, AI teams cannot come up with the same, and except SFrasor's short CB all the other short CB's in the game will still be suffering.

Trust me, as a tester I tried to point out the flaws in the rating sysyem as much as I could, but ratings were unfortunately far from being prority for SI. There were hundreds of other issues reamining with the game, the ME coder didn't see ironing out the rating system as a priority. He was extremely busy with so many other things. He fixed one of the major issues though (the issue I mentioned in the first paragraph )

[SFraser]

What SFraser is trying to do is finding a workaround

What SFraser is suggesting is just a workaround, nothing more

Zona Mista is a "workaround" to the problems caused by Total Football to traditional forms of Catenaccio. Effective principles of real life defending are not "workarounds" to ratings bugs in FM10, they are the foundations of all solid tactics. Poor stuff indeed.

[bleventozturk]

Take a step back from the screen and look at your formation, mate. If this is not a complicated tactic, that what is? If all this is needed in FM to have your short CB getting good ratings (by the way you never showed us your players' average ratings, so we don't even know if this crazy formation is a solution), that means the rating system is not working well.

Besides, have you ever seen an AI team with a formation that is close to this one in any way? You are making things way too complicated. This is just a game, and trust me, when PaulC was working on the ME, he didn't have a tactic like this one in mind as a necessary tool for your short CB's to perform well.

Anyway, I guess you just don't want to see my point.

[SFraser]

Take a step back from the screen and look at your formation, mate. If this is not a complicated tactic, that what is? If all this is needed in FM to have your short CB getting good ratings (by the way you never showed us your players' average ratings, so we don't even know if this crazy formation is a solution), that means the rating system is not working well.

Besides, have you ever seen an AI team with a formation that is close to this one in any way? You are making things way too complicated. This is just a game, and trust me, when PaulC was working on the ME, he didn't have a tactic like this one in mind as a necessary tool for your short CB's to perform well.

Anyway, I guess you just don't want to see my point.

This "crazy" formation is how different from the Nike Defence exactly? An attacking Leftback and a defensive Rightback. That is the difference between the back four of Zona Mista and the Nike Defence of a covering sweeper and aggressive stopper. It is just the Nike tick expanded to include good usage of your wide defenders. Flanking a short/aerially weak Centreback with a tall Fullback and tall Centreback is just good tactics, good organisation of your defence.

This "crazy" formation is just a 4-4-2 with Stopper/Cover in central defence, MCd/MCa in Central Midfield, an attacking left wingback and an attacking right winger, and a left midfielder that plays narrow and a right back that plays narrow. It is about as complex as 90% of the basic 4-4-2 formations people regularly try to develop anyway, or you get from the TC.

The thing about formation in the image is that it understands the weakness down the outside channel of the sweeper, and plays a "Wes Brown" role of a cross between Fullback and Stopper. It's something I had been doing for years before knowing about Zona Mista, because it is simply good tactics to defend that channel that the Covering Centreback can leave exposed, both on the ground and in the air.

If for some reason you have not come that far in your own defensive tactics, and leave a Covering Centreback exposed on the ground or in the air down his outside channel, then you should be punished for it as that is the point of the game. You cannot design random tactics with glaring weaknesses and whinge whenever they actually fail, whether that is through aerial battles or outright conceding goals.

In this case, it is your tactics. You are leaving a short centreback exposed to contest headers. Tactical failure.

The average rating for my first choice back four is 7.38, 7.4, 7.4, 7.48.

[Katarian]

The average rating for my first choice back four is 7.38, 7.4, 7.4, 7.48.

It'd be quite nice to know the jumping values for those players. If you are using Evra - Vidic - Ferdinand - Brown as you mentioned earlier then neither of your CB are poor at jumping, even Evra has good jumping compared to a lot of the regen FB (in my current game, in 2021, only a 1/3 have 12 or higher, and only 59 out of 12000 have a jumping as high as Brown) and is better then my CB I was having problems with.

[bleventozturk]

When I say "crazy" I mean "very unusual". I hope you didn't get offended

Your tactic is very asymmetric (looking at that sketch you drew) and so unusual (in FM standards) that no AI team's tactic is anywhere close to this. Only YOU will be using this. In that sense I consider it as a workaround because in no other way your short CB will get good ratings.

Who is your short CB by the way and what is his jumping attribute?

[SFraser]

When I say "crazy" I mean "very unusual". I hope you didn't get offended

Your tactic is very asymmetric (looking at that sketch you drew) and so unusual (in FM standards) that no AI team's tactic is anywhere close to this. Only YOU will be using this. In that sense I consider it as a workaround because in no other way your short CB will get good ratings.

I didn't draw anything. It's from the wikipedia entry on Catenaccio. It is a real formation. I neither invented it nor drew the picture.

To produce it in FM I use a back four with Wingback Attack, CB Stopper, CB Cover, Fullback Defend. I seriously doubt my defence is the only defence in the entire game to ever use those settings, and I would consider it a huge tactical flaw in the game if the AI never covered the outside channel of its Covering Centreback.

Who is your short CB by the way and what is his jumping attribute?

There is far more to winning headers than Jumping alone, by an absolute mile. Strength is a key attribute in winning headers, as is Aggression.

My short CB is Jonny Evans, Jumping 16, Strength 15, Aggression 10. Not a rock for EPL or ECL levels, by any means.

Against Liverpool he went for 6 headers, won 3, and was rated 7.2

Against Chelsea he went for 16 headers, won 13 and was rated 6.8

Against Bristol City he went for 6 headers, won 5 and was rated 8.2

Against West Ham he went for 10 headers, won 9 and was rated 7.4

Against Newcastle he went for 8 headers, won 7 and was rated 7.8

I see absolutely no correlation whatsoever between headers won and match rating. Nothing here suggest anything like the claims being made, that headers are either weighed too importantly, or that losing them causes an overweighed drop in match rating.

[Rupal]

Surely it can't be right to base one's entire tactics around a method of avoiding low ratings for relatively short DCs, no matter how it is done.

That's the equivalent of asking an army to fit in with the man who's out of step.

[SFraser]

Surely it can't be right to base one's entire tactics around a method of avoiding low ratings for relatively short DCs, no matter how it is done.

That's the equivalent of asking an army to fit in with the man who's out of step.

I think most people understand the value of adapting tactics around strengths and weaknesses of players, and of the consequences of failing to do so. If you lack Pace and Anticipation in your backline, there is no point blaming the game or your players when your high D-Line repeatedly fails.

Bit of a daft post there Rupal.

[CaptainPlanet]

Winning > player ratings.

[AB-forever]

SFraser: A Jumping attribute of 16 does not make him short at all. I think people are talking about centre backs with Jumping below 14 or thereabouts.

[Windaas]

Absolutely. Every FM had problems with match ratings, and this year's problem is the short CB not winning headers being rated unfairly. The fact that this specific issue was never the case in previous FM is proof enough that something is wrong with the CB ratings in FM2010-10.3.

What SFraser is trying to do is finding a workaround, just like we had to do for AM C's in some of the previous FM's. There were some games in the past where you had to organize your whole attack through your AM C (so that he will touch the ball as much as possible), otherwise he would always get low ratings. The present problem is a similar one. This time the headers for CB's are overrated, and the workaround is to find a tactic where your short CB will simply hide from those high balls. Ideally the tackles, interceptions, CB moving with the ball and making a good pass, etc. should be equally important to headers, then a short, less physical CB with good technical skills and pace&agility would still get good ratings.

I just don't like it that in every FM something is broke with the rating system and we end up spending time on finding a workaround. And it is just funny how some people always keep trying to justify the issue. When AM C's were getting low ratings unless you make them use every set piece, give the ball to them in eery attack, etc., I remember some people were saying "of course you have to work your attack always through your AM C, that's the only purpose of having an AM C, if you don't use him like that it is fair that he gets low ratings, bla bla bla". What SFraser is suggesting is just a workaround, nothing more (and I tried using my short CB as cover, he's still getting lower ratings than his tall CB partner). Maybe it will work if you set almost your whole team (like SFraser suggested) to suit the short CB, but like I said, this is nothing but a workaround, to cover for the flaw in rating system.

I think you misunderstood how a short DC works...

DC occupied in the heart of the defence, no matter how tall (or short) your DC is, losing headers in this area often lead to concede goals, so it is unrealist if a short DC can avord this rating.

No matter how good your short DC in other defensive abilities, can't jump is are real weakness! So most team avord using a short DC.

If any time want to use one because he is so good at defence (except arieal challenges), the only way is to provide arieal protection for him: surround him with other good jumpers, so he can concentrate on his defensive magic! (eg. inteceptions, markings, tacklings)

So the only way to utilise a short DC is by building a defend system which this short DC can avoid aireal challenges. YES it is a workaround, but it is a real world workaround.

If a short DC constantly forced to make arieal challenges against tall oppoents, of course he will have bad ratings but that is because he is not protected from his weakness, manager fault.

The only problem is that if the defence is set up correctly, is the engine smart enough to make it work as real world.

I don't play a short DC, so I can't test it.

PS: pairing 2 short DCs(can't jump) is suicide! No matter how good they are in other defensive abilities! Their weakness is so huge to be protected.

[bleventozturk]

My short CB is Jonny Evans, Jumping 16, Strength 15, Aggression 10. Not a rock for EPL or ECL levels, by any means.

I wish you wrote this 30 posts ago. 16 for jumping is really high. We are talking about CB's with jumping less than 13 here. You completely misread the whole point I was making.

It's not your tactics that is making Evans get high rating, it's his already high enough jumping. Replace Evans with some CB who has 11-12 jumping, then you will see what this whole thread is all about

What a waste of time this discussion was...

[bleventozturk]

SFraser: A Jumping attribute of 16 does not make him short at all. I think people are talking about centre backs with Jumping below 14 or thereabouts.

Exactly...

[bleventozturk]

So the only way to utilise a short DC is by building a defend system which this short DC can avoid aireal challenges. YES it is a workaround, but it is a real world workaround.

If a short DC constantly forced to make arieal challenges against tall oppoents, of course he will have bad ratings but that is because he is not protected from his weakness, manager fault.

The only problem is that if the defence is set up correctly, is the engine smart enough to make it work as real world.

I don't play a short DC, so I can't test it.

.

What you're saying makes sense. However like I said before, I already tried using my short CB in 'cover' role, and my other CB was a monster in the air, and it still didn't work. SFrasor claimed with his tactic his 'short' CB is getting good ratings. But as it turned out, his 'short' CB had 16!!! jumping after all.

[bleventozturk]

Long story short, in FM a mediocre CB with 12 marking and 13 tackling but with 18 jumping performs better than a player like Puyol who has 18-20 for tackling, marking, anticipation (and everything else that make a good CB) but 13 for jumping. I wouldn't complain if simply giving Puyol the 'cover' duty would work, but it doesn't, so there is no way you can make him play better than the other guy, and that is just wrong.

[SFraser]

I think you missed the part where A: multiple attributes define the ability to win the ball and B: where heading success ratio made no obvious impact on ratings.

Jumping of 16 is high, for a bottom of the table EPL or Championship side. It is nowhere near high when your basic standard is competing with teams like Chelsea, players like Drogba etc.

When competing at the highest level, Jumping of 16 for Evans is low just like Acceleration and Pace of 12 for Vidic is low. No one here is discussing how my 12 Pace, 12 Acceleration Centreback is managing an average rating of 7.4 in league premised on pacey strikers, because defensive strategies on how to deal with Pacey Strikers are widely known and no one here is going to expose Vidic to Torres etc. by playing a high D-Line and failing to cover him on both inside and outside channels with Pace.

The statistics I produced above showed Evans getting a rating of 7.2 when winning 50% of his headers, compared to a rating of 6.8 when he won 80% of his headers, compared to a rating of 8.2 when he won 90% of his headers.

There is no correlation to back up the claims made in the OP.

You are picking and choosing your arguements because you know your claims are flawed and your tactics are at fault for putting weak players in the wrong situation in the first place.

So I would ask you, what is your defensive setup and what are the attributes of the players in your backline? Would I be wrong in imagining that you have a Covering Defender with weak Jumping being completely exposed by an attacking fullback that also cannot jump?

If you actually used the player as Cover, and not to try and win aerial battles, you might find that both the player and the role stop sucking hard.

[SFraser]

Long story short, in FM a mediocre CB with 12 marking and 13 tackling but with 18 jumping performs better than a player like Puyol who has 18-20 for tackling, marking, anticipation (and everything else that make a good CB) but 13 for jumping. I wouldn't complain if simply giving Puyol the 'cover' duty would work, but it doesn't, so there is no way you can make him play better than the other guy, and that is just wrong.

I think the point you are missing is not involving him in battles he cannot win, i.e. actually using him properly.

No point giving Puyol the "Cover" duty and hoping he wont suck in the air when no one else around him is going up for headers. You can't just stick players in roles without the slightest consideration to the rest of your team or at the very least the nearby players. If the fullback on Puyols side is halfway up the pitch, Puyol is no longer "cover" anymore but the only defender you have left on that side.

You keep talking about the "problem" in a completely tunnel-visioned manner. That's why it is a problem. It's like saying slow Centrebacks get punished for being slow when they play on the half way line with no pacey cover.

[Taytaz]

Well that may be the case in the higher echelons but it certainly isn't at a lower level.

I watch Rushden and Diamonds in the BSP. We have reached the playoffs as a result of a run which has seen us lose only 2 games, both to very dubious late penalties, since Christmas. One of the reasons for this has been the immense solidity of our two DCs, neither of whom is a giant by any manner of means.

As a general point, I'm convinced that the game rates physicality too highly and does not value skill enough. That explains why assmen prefer fast players to clever ones and why players who have little else to offer but pace are rated highly.

It's particularly glaring in the lower leagues, where a striker with (say) pace 14, acceleration 15, finishing 3, technique 3 and composure 4 will be highly recommended for signing.

I spose it depends how short is short.

Under 6ft isn't short but maybe it could be considered short. I played Centreback for most of my life until recently, where I found I just can't compete in the air effectively as I am only 5"9. I actually am short, as in, below average height for the general male populace. But I'm sure that anybody 5"10-6ft could make up for not being a giant by mental skill or even just being really solid in the tackle and marking.

One thing I notice about the FM match engine is reflected IRL. Many big clubs youth academies are full of really pacy players with less than amazing technical ability (presumably they beleive pace is natural whilst technique can be improved.) Even at lower levels I have found that being really quick does a world of good on the pitch. It allows a player to recover if other skills let then down. e.g. If you lose your man/miss a tackle you can run him down and have another crack.

[SFraser]

I spose it depends how short is short.

Under 6ft isn't short but maybe it could be considered short. I played Centreback for most of my life until recently, where I found I just can't compete in the air effectively as I am only 5"9. I actually am short, as in, below average height for the general male populace. But I'm sure that anybody 5"10-6ft could make up for not being a giant by mental skill or even just being really solid in the tackle and marking.

One thing I notice about the FM match engine is reflected IRL. Many big clubs youth academies are full of really pacy players with less than amazing technical ability (presumably they beleive pace is natural whilst technique can be improved.) Even at lower levels I have found that being really quick does a world of good on the pitch. It allows a player to recover if other skills let then down. e.g. If you lose your man/miss a tackle you can run him down and have another crack.

Do you ever notice short but strong players being able to knock much taller players off the ball?

[bleventozturk]

Dude, just replace Evans with somebody that has less than 13 jumping (like you say Vidic has 12 in pace, but that doesn't hold him back from getting good ratings), then come back, we can continue talking.

[Taytaz]

Yes tall players can be muscled off the ball but it's not the easiest proposition when the ball is in the Air. Even If a shorter player is in a slightly better position to head due to physicality, a much taller player should still be able to get his head to the ball.

[Rupal]

I think most people understand the value of adapting tactics around strengths and weaknesses of players, and of the consequences of failing to do so. If you lack Pace and Anticipation in your backline, there is no point blaming the game or your players when your high D-Line repeatedly fails.

Bit of a daft post there Rupal.

Why do you insist on making something really quite simple excessively complicated?

The problem is with the ratings not with people's tactics. Winning headers is over valued when compared with the various other facets of the DC's job, that's all. It really is as straighforward as that.

I just won a game 3-0. My DCs (who both happen to be 'only' 5'11") both had ratings of under 6.5 because they were losing headers to a pair of 6'3" strikers - not be it noted in dangerous positions. In fact, they coped perfectly well. The problem was not with my tactics or their play but with the rating.

A judicious use of Occam's razor might serve to assist your thinking.

[SFraser]

Dude, just replace Evans with somebody that has less than 13 jumping (like you say Vidic has 12 in pace, but that doesn't hold him back from getting good ratings), then come back, we can continue talking.

Talking is getting us nowhere.

Is it clear yet that everything you are saying from start to finish is utter rubbish?

[SFraser]

Why do you insist on making something really quite simple excessively complicated?

The problem is with the ratings not with people's tactics. Winning headers is over valued when compared with the various other facets of the DC's job, that's all. It really is as straighforward as that.

I just won a game 3-0. My DCs (who both happen to be 'only' 5'11") both had ratings of under 6.5 because they were losing headers to a pair of 6'3" strikers - not be it noted in dangerous positions. In fact, they coped perfectly well. The problem was not with my tactics or their play but with the rating.

A judicious use of Occam's razor might serve to assist your thinking.

Totally false, see above.

You are missing about a million other factors, minimum.

It most certainly was your tactics. I know you don't like admitting it but you need to start accepting it. You will enjoy the game more when you do.

[Rupal]

One thing I notice about the FM match engine is reflected IRL. Many big clubs youth academies are full of really pacy players with less than amazing technical ability (presumably they beleive pace is natural whilst technique can be improved.) Even at lower levels I have found that being really quick does a world of good on the pitch. It allows a player to recover if other skills let then down. e.g. If you lose your man/miss a tackle you can run him down and have another crack.

Well obviously, other things being equal, it will be better to be fast than not so fast and (in the case of a DC) to be taller rather than shorter. But the beauty is that very often other things are not equal, which is why (to take one example) possibly the slowest midfielder ever to play for England, Bobby Moore, is also considered by many to have been the best we have ever had.

[Rupal]

Totally false, see above.

You are missing about a million other factors, minimum.

It most certainly was your tactics. I know you don't like admitting it but you need to start accepting it. You will enjoy the game more when you do.

Oh so my tactics were at fault when I won 3-0 against a side which was supposedly better than mine?

Hmmmm.

Edit: You have to remember that SI has a 'record' in messing the ratings up. See earlier posts regarding last year's AMC problems.

[SFraser]

Oh so my tactics were at fault when I won 3-0 against a side which was supposedly better than mine?

Hmmmm.

I thought we were discussing defenders ratings?

Never miss an opportunity for a red herring, eh Rupal?

Your defenders received ratings of what was it? Under 6.5? That's absolutely dire. I can't say I would ever put up with that. Ratings under 7.0 are tactical issues, I always consider them such and when I see such a rating I consider to be my fault. You cannot be used properly and perform that badly.

But it wasn't headers, and you should note that height doesn't factor into the game.

Would be nice if you actually addressed some of the evidence posted in this thread, rather than random rhetoric and clear perception bias.

Edit: You have to remember that SI has a 'record' in messing the ratings up. See earlier posts regarding last year's AMC problems.

SI have a record of changing things that work but a majority can't get to grips with.

[Taytaz]

Oh so my tactics were at fault when I won 3-0 against a side which was supposedly better than mine?

Hmmmm.

Edit: You have to remember that SI has a 'record' in messing the ratings up. See earlier posts regarding last year's AMC problems.

if the opposition touched the ball then your tactics were flawed to a degree. Maybe that 3-0 could have been a 5-0, winning does not always equal good tactics

[SFraser]

if the opposition touched the ball then your tactics were flawed to a degree. Maybe that 3-0 could have been a 5-0, winning does not always equal good tactics

I think the whole "3-0 win, Centreback rating of under 6.5" points to fundamental tactical flaws more than the opponent touching the ball.

I can't say I would get away with such ratings with my team at the level I play at, maybe Carling Cup games against trully dire opponents.

[Rupal]

I thought we were discussing defenders ratings?

Never miss an opportunity for a red herring, eh Rupal?

Your defenders received ratings of what was it? Under 6.5? That's absolutely dire. I can't say I would ever put up with that. Ratings under 7.0 are tactical issues, I always consider them such and when I see such a rating I consider to be my fault. You cannot be used properly and perform that badly.

But it wasn't headers, and you should note that height doesn't factor into the game.

Would be nice if you actually addressed some of the evidence posted in this thread, rather than random rhetoric and clear perception bias.

Piffle.

My DCs coped perfectly adequately. Height is factored into jumping. A short player will rarely have as good a jumping stat as a tall one. That's elementary.

If my DCs had been a disaster (which you are suggesting) I doubt that I would have won a convincing 3-0 victory.

Get it through your head once and for all that the problem is with the rating rather than with people's tactics. It's exactly the same as occurred with AMCs in FM 09. No doubt you'll say that THOSE ratings were as a result of people's tactical ineptitude.

None so blind as those who won't see!

[Windaas]

Why do you insist on making something really quite simple excessively complicated?

The problem is with the ratings not with people's tactics. Winning headers is over valued when compared with the various other facets of the DC's job, that's all. It really is as straighforward as that.

I just won a game 3-0. My DCs (who both happen to be 'only' 5'11") both had ratings of under 6.5 because they were losing headers to a pair of 6'3" strikers - not be it noted in dangerous positions. In fact, they coped perfectly well. The problem was not with my tactics or their play but with the rating.

A judicious use of Occam's razor might serve to assist your thinking.

I don't no why ratings need to relate with tactics!

A DC is a DC, losing headers in front of own goal mouth is dangours no matter the DC is tall or short!

A good short DC isn't good because he can lose header as he like, a good short DC is good because teammates who are good in the air challenge high ball for him! So he avoid his weakness and can concentrate on this strengths.

It is non-sense that a short DC don't care about losing headers, the only way a short DC works in a defence system is to avoid putting himself in situation where he have to challenge high ball.

So if a short DC preforms well, he should have low number of headers and alot of interceptions and tackles. Let your short DC heads alot of high balls (and lost most of them) just make your team lose the match.

[SFraser]

None so blind as those who won't see!

Missed the whole headers versus ratings thing I just pointed out, how ironic.

I know it can be difficult to actually look at the FM screen, so let me inform you that my team got absolutely dominated in the air and crushed the aerially dominant opponent in terms of ratings.

Hard to believe I post those screenshots and then still have to point out the bleeding obvious. You got your eyes open at all or are you just on one of these famous random crusades of yours?

[Rupal]

if the opposition touched the ball then your tactics were flawed to a degree. Maybe that 3-0 could have been a 5-0, winning does not always equal good tactics

Winning against superior opposition against the forecast is unlikely to be achieved by BAD tactics, if we're honest.

Are you seriously saying that if the opposition touch the ball it shows that there is something awry with your tactics? That's simply not sensible. It means that every single one of us in every single game uses flawed tactics, which deprives the word 'flawed' of its normal meaning.

Edit: I'm certainly not claiming anything special at all for my tactics in that match. But the performance, all things considered was respectable, considering it was the third match at the start of a new save with an ungelled squad with a couple of key players out injured. I expect the ratings to go up as the squad plays together more. But I don't think the tactics were 'flawed' in any normal meaning of that word.

[SFraser]

Winning against superior opposition against the forecast is unlikely to be achieved by BAD tactics, if we're honest.

Are you seriously saying that if the opposition touch the ball it shows that there is something awry with your tactics? That's simply not sensible. It means that every single one of us in every single game uses flawed tactics, which deprives the word 'flawed' of its normal meaning.

Obviously, he was tending towards hyperbole. Surely you would understand that?

Just to make perfectly clear an already absolutely obvious point (pay attention to the RED). For those that refuse to look at screenshots of games:

Do you see that Rupal? Are you seeing this absolute and complete refutation of the premise of this thread?

Can it possibly be made clearer?

[Rupal]

Missed the whole headers versus ratings thing I just pointed out, how ironic.

I know it can be difficult to actually look at the FM screen, so let me inform you that my team got absolutely dominated in the air and crushed the aerially dominant opponent in terms of ratings.

Hard to believe I post those screenshots and then still have to point out the bleeding obvious. You got your eyes open at all or are you just on one of these famous random crusades of yours?

What are those screenshots supposed to prove?

You got dominated in the air but won the match because you were far superior in other departments.

So what?

This says absolutely nothing about the relative weighting given to heading and to other factors in DCs' ratings, which is the point at issue.

Had your opponents been as dire in the air as they were in the rest of their play, no doubt their ratings would have been still worse.

Get it now? I suppose I can always live in hope.......

[SFraser]

What are those screenshots supposed to prove?

You got dominated in the air but won the match because you were far superior in other departments.

So what? That's exactly the position I was in with my game.

This says absolutely nothing about the relative weighting given to heading and to other factors, which is the point at issue.

The whole set shows that Ratings and losing headers are not one and the same. That ratings depend on far more than winning headers, and that losing most headers can still enable you to have higher ratings than someone winning all the headers.

Basically it refutes the whole premise of the thread. Players that dominated the aerial battle were marked far lower than players that were dominated in the air. Two Wolfsberg defenders won all their headers and got marked 6.4 and 4.2(!) respectively.

That's won ALL his headers and got marked 4.2...

There is no correlation between claim and evidence. The exact opposite can be true. There is clearly something fundamentally wrong with the arguement.

I'm sure even you can see that. Must see that?

[SFraser]

Had your opponents been as dire in the air as they were in the rest of their play, no doubt their ratings would have been still worse.

Get it now?

They were not dire. They owned me in the air. Their highest rating was lower than my worst sub.

Arguement refuted. End of story.

[lonestar007]

The problem is that ratings are, and always have been, a reflection of how the player is playing at any particular moment. They are not an accurate reflection of the player's overall performance in the game.

The example above proves this, and is thus likewise a flawed example. Look at Ferdinand and Vidic. They both got decent ratings. Problem is that they both did basically nothing during the game to earn the ratings.

Look at Ferdinand: 19 of 21 passes, 1 of 1 tackle (not key), 3 of 8 headers (1 key), and one interception. 7.5 rating.

Compare to Barzagli: 11 of 15 passes, 2 of 2 tackles (not key), 12 of 12 headers (8 key), and six interceptions. 6.4 rating.

Where did the extra point come from? It just isn't in the statistics.

[SFraser]

The problem is that ratings are, and always have been, a reflection of how the player is playing at any particular moment. They are not an accurate reflection of the player's overall performance in the game.

The example above proves this, and is thus likewise a flawed example. Look at Ferdinand and Vidic. They both got decent ratings. Problem is that they both did basically nothing during the game to earn the ratings.

Look at Ferdinand: 19 of 21 passes, 1 of 1 tackle (not key), 3 of 8 headers (1 key), and one interception. 7.5 rating.

Compare to Barzagli: 11 of 15 passes, 2 of 2 tackles (not key), 12 of 12 headers (8 key), and six interceptions. 6.4 rating.

Where did the extra point come from? It just isn't in the statistics.

Ferdinand made FIVE interceptions.

Scholes had an assist yet was the lowest rated of my starting outfield 10, shooting yet another myth in the head.

Too much junk and not enough clue in this thread, and many others like it.

[Rupal]

The whole set shows that Ratings and losing headers are not one and the same. That ratings depend on far more than winning headers, and that losing most headers can still enable you to have higher ratings than someone winning all the headers.

Basically it refutes the whole premise of the thread. Players that dominated the aerial battle were marked far lower than players that were dominated in the air. Two Wolfsberg defenders won all their headers and got marked 6.4 and 4.2(!) respectively.

That's won ALL his headers and got marked 4.2...

There is no correlation between claim and evidence. The exact opposite can be true. There is clearly something fundamentally wrong with the arguement.

I'm sure even you can see that. Must see that?

You still don't grasp it, do you?

Let me try to explain gently.

First of all, did the opposition player who won all his headers make mistakes that led to your scoring goals, eg a couple of simple missed interceptions? I bet he did! If he didn't, I find it very hard to understand how he could have been rated as low as he was. Mistakes leading to goals dramatically reduce ratings. And did the guy who was rated at 6.2 make a mistake of the same sort as well? Seems pretty likely to me. Indeed, I'd have thought it most unusual for a side to lose 5-0 without some pretty poor defending by its DCs.

All that your figures show is that these players were very bad on the night apart from their headers and nothing else at all. Whilst their heading superiority would have gone some way towards tweaking their ratings up, it obviously wouldn't have compensated for the rest of what they did.

Also has it not occurred to you that a player may 'win' a header against an opponent but just head the ball straight to another opposition player? How good were the headers made by your opponents? Did you observe that? Probably not.

[lonestar007]

Ferdinand made FIVE interceptions.

Scholes had an assist yet was the lowest rated of my starting outfield 10, shooting yet another myth in the head.

Too much junk and not enough clue in this thread, and many others like it.

I missed that. Still doesn't explain the point statistically. (Note my post was mostly agreeing with you)

Its true that a CB doesn't need to be tall to get good ratings, but it helps a lot. When playing as a team like Man U against Wolfsburg, it means the CB is not under as much preassure to perform and rides the overall team's performance while basically doing the duties required but not performing amazingly.

When you think about real life, I cannot think of many shorter CBs who were not on really good teams. A mid-table to lower team needs tall CBs as these players are dealing with more crosses and dont have the amazing talent around them to help prevent attacks. I could defend crouch (I am 5'10'') if a cross never came into the box and the only headers I had to fight for were 40 yards from my goal. So what that I lose them all? My amazing other CB, DC and FBs will pick up the pieces and I will look good for putting preassure on crouch.

[nev147]

This debate is getting stupid (mud slinging) now but here is my take on things. As I said earlier there is too much emphasis put on the jumping stat with regards to CB's - in short the advantages of a high heading attribute seem to be weighted far to high and thus it seems that the taller CB's for more sepecifically the jumping attributeof CB's s seems to be over stated.

However as fraser has made some good points it seems there are ways to compensate for this via the tactics to allow shorter players to flourish and to play to their strengths. But it seems fraser believes there are solutions out there - but some people are saying there should be no need for a solution becasue this problem should not be there in the first place.

I'm on the fence here but fraser, having seen your screen shot this is an example of one game and you won 5-0 - so their CB's are going to have pretty dire ratings and your players are going to have very good ratings and your defenders will have good ratings but not as good as your attacking players.

Regarding the statistics too much emphasis is put on goals for an individual and for the team. A plyer could have a pretty bad game for his position and then score a goal and he will get at least 7.5 most of the time, not always but most. And if a team winns 5-0 then the vast majority of the players will have above average ratings even though there individual performance was pretty bad.

In theory an exampe is good but it is 5-0 (not the norm) and it is in the champions league - continental football etc not much long play, more on the deck unlike the EPL where there is so much emphasis on physical attributes. So 1 example is not enough - not that I'm saying you should provide anymore becasue that would be unreasnable and it seems you are the only person who has used any evidence!

[SFraser]

You still don't grasp it, do you?

Let me try to explain gently.

First of all, did the opposition player who won all his headers make mistakes that led to your scoring goals, eg a couple of simple missed interceptions? I bet he did! If he didn't, I find it very hard to understand how he could have been rated as low as he was. Mistakes leading to goals dramatically reduce ratings. And did the guy who was rated at 6.2 make a mistake of the same sort as well? Seems pretty likely to me. Indeed, I'd have thought it most unusual for a side to lose 5-0 without some pretty poor defending by its DCs.

All that your figures show is that these players were very bad on the night apart from their headers and nothing else at all. Whilst their heading superiority would have gone some way towards tweaking their ratings up, it obviously wouldn't have compensated for the rest of what they did.

Also has it not occurred to you that a player may 'win' a header against an opponent but just head the ball straight to another opposition player? How good were the headers made by your opponents? Did you observe that? Probably not.

I'm not the one arguing the positive claim that poor jumping = poor ratings. I am the one showing that the game is far more complex than that, and that for every conclusion or example proving the positive I can provide an example proving the negative.

You are quite right that there is more to these things than meets the eye. I just wish you would understand that.

In a longball game, or a game where X side lacks sufficient tactical cover, or where Y side is allowing constant jumping tests in key areas, a side with defenders poor at jumping is going to be punished. When the converse is true, the converse is true. That is what I have tried to show, backing up my previous arguements about tactics.

Did you notice the positioning of Fletcher and Scholes and the defenders behind each player? Fletcher closes down and on his flank is an aerially weak fullback. Scholes is physically inept, and on his flank is a physically strong defender.

I am quite sure that my tactics for that match have made a significant impact on ratings and performance, but that's the point!

[Rupal]

I'm not the one arguing the positive claim that poor jumping = poor ratings. I am the one showing that the game is far more complex than that, and that for every conclusion or example proving the positive I can provide an example proving the negative.

You are quite right that there is more to these things than meets the eye. I just wish you would understand that.

It's not a question of poor jumping = poor ratings. It's a question of the relative importance of jumping in the ratings, which is not the same thing at all. To state the blindingly obvious, a player would hardly get low ratings for his jumping in a match if his opponent was even worse!

I just wish you would give people a little more credit for common sense. Looking at what they have actually said would help.

Of course your tactics have made a difference to the ratings of various players. But nobody has ever suggested anything different.

[SFraser]

When you think about real life, I cannot think of many shorter CBs who were not on really good teams. A mid-table to lower team needs tall CBs as these players are dealing with more crosses and dont have the amazing talent around them to help prevent attacks. I could defend crouch (I am 5'10'') if a cross never came into the box and the only headers I had to fight for were 40 yards from my goal. So what that I lose them all? My amazing other CB, DC and FBs will pick up the pieces and I will look good for putting preassure on crouch.

That's absolutely spot on. One of the best points in the thread.

My point is that players of FM should be trying to play in that manner, that is the real key to the game, that is the true heart and soul of the game. It's not about the players you have so much as it is about how you use them.

[SFraser]

It's not a question of poor jumping = poor ratings. It's a question of the relative importance of jumping in the ratings, which is not the same thing at all. To state the blindingly obvious, a player would hardly get low ratings for his jumping in a match if his opponent was even worse!

I just wish you would give people a little more credit for common sense. Looking at what they have actually said would help.

I think I have made the point about relative ratings abundantly clear.

If you want to pull all this back and actually discuss the point, don't be so hasty to jump to hyperbole and rhetoric. That is only going to go one way.

you are the only person who has used any evidence!

Glad you noticed. You should pay attention to evidence in FM, it's a huge factor in success at the game. More important than any other manager "attribute" by a huge margin.