How hard is it to get below a 6?

[KingCanary]

As far as I can see, the match ratings in this game only really exist in the gap between 6.2 and 9.8. Numbers 1 though 5 barely even exist.

Example in the below screenshot- I went into this game 1 place behind Chelsea and was 4-0 down at half time. Yet nobody was apparently worth anything less than 6.4 out of 10.

It seems to me that unless a player does something stupid to get sent off or is personally at fault for a goal they are hugely unlikely to drop below a 6.0. 

Is this just me?

[Prepper_Jack]

Well, I did see a screenshot in the funny screenshots thread of a 24-0 game where a player had something like a 2.8. But, yeah, it's fairly rare that I see anyone get below a 6 during a match. I run in lower leagues usually, however, and go for loyal personalities over professional, ambitious, or whatever. They don't seem to ordinarily have the will to utterly dominate opposition when they have the chance, and it takes them a fair bit of coaxing to have them go beyond 5-0 or so during the regular season. In friendlies against lower league teams, though, they can definitely get 10+ goals ahead and the other team will dip into deep 5s and 4s in ratings.

[KingCanary]

12 hours ago, Prepper_Jack said:

Well, I did see a screenshot in the funny screenshots thread of a 24-0 game where a player had something like a 2.8. But, yeah, it's fairly rare that I see anyone get below a 6 during a match. I run in lower leagues usually, however, and go for loyal personalities over professional, ambitious, or whatever. They don't seem to ordinarily have the will to utterly dominate opposition when they have the chance, and it takes them a fair bit of coaxing to have them go beyond 5-0 or so during the regular season. In friendlies against lower league teams, though, they can definitely get 10+ goals ahead and the other team will dip into deep 5s and 4s in ratings.

Yeah, I guess my view is if it takes a double digit loss to get into the low 5s/high 4s then it is almost a bit pointless.

Post this game I had a question about why I didn't sub Joel Ward for his clearly below par performance- he got a 6.4. To me the difference between a decent performance and a sub par performance being 0.3 of a point is a bit weird when you've got a whole scale of 10 to work with.

[Smurf]

I signed a player before for Leeds. He had great stats and a good career record. In his first game he was directly responsible for letting 4 goals in the first half and was getting a 2.1 or something.

I subbed him at half-time - terminated his contract and continued with the match.

Got a news item the next day that he as given a free transfer. But I always wished the headline said "Player-X has contract terminated at half-time for abysmal performance!" or something like that.

 

[KingCanary]

3 minutes ago, Smurf said:

I signed a player before for Leeds. He had great stats and a good career record. In his first game he was directly responsible for letting 4 goals in the first half and was getting a 2.1 or something.

I subbed him at half-time - terminated his contract and continued with the match.

Got a news item the next day that he as given a free transfer. But I always wished the headline said "Player-X has contract terminated at half-time for abysmal performance!" or something like that.

 

Have you heard of Michael Theoklitos? His career in England went in a similar style...

[tajj7]

It's not that hard they just have to make like 2-3 mistakes and they will easily get a 5 or even a 4.

Last game for me one of my wingers missed like 4 good chances and ended up with a 5.7, I've seen opposition centre-backs give away two goals and get like a sub 5. 

[KingCanary]

Just now, tajj7 said:

It's not that hard they just have to make like 2-3 mistakes and they will easily get a 5 or even a 4.

Last game for me one of my wingers missed like 4 good chances and ended up with a 5.7, I've seen opposition centre-backs give away two goals and get like a sub 5. 

This is kind of what I see as wrong with it though- I don't think for a player to have a bad game they need have directly given away two goals- you can play badly and be directly responsible for zero goals going in.

[tajj7]

Just now, KingCanary said:

This is kind of what I see as wrong with it though- I don't think for a player to have a bad game they need have directly given away two goals- you can play badly and be directly responsible for zero goals going in.

Yeh but you'd get like a low 6 for that IMO, which is just about right.  If you can't really pin down what they did that was badly wrong, I don't see why they would get a really bad rating. 

[KingCanary]

2 minutes ago, tajj7 said:

Yeh but you'd get like a low 6 for that IMO, which is just about right.  If you can't really pin down what they did that was badly wrong, I don't see why they would get a really bad rating. 

I dunno. For me, you've got a full 1 to 10 scale but the way FM has been over the years has made it that players will always see 5.8 or similar as 'a really bad rating' which renders the rest of the scale as a bit pointless. If you have to be really bad to get 5.8 then you'd have to basically forget how to play football to get a 4.3.

[tajj7]

15 minutes ago, KingCanary said:

I dunno. For me, you've got a full 1 to 10 scale but the way FM has been over the years has made it that players will always see 5.8 or similar as 'a really bad rating' which renders the rest of the scale as a bit pointless. If you have to be really bad to get 5.8 then you'd have to basically forget how to play football to get a 4.3.

I think you less have to see it as a 1 to 10 rating and more like a standard distribution scale, most professional footballers are going to be competent enough to play averagely most of the time and do their jobs without necessarily being spectacular, especially at the higher levels of the game. Most top league footballers are highly skilled, they can pass, control the ball, tackle mark etc. to a decent level.

You then have them in highly organised and drilled team units where they often have specific roles and that is highly coached, again making it difficult for them to perform really badly.

So IMO really to have a really bad or really good game, you have to do things that influence the outcome of the game are out of the ordinary to normal play and patterns of the game, which is often mistakes and it would have to be repeated mistakes to get really low ratings, which professional players often don't do unless they are having a shocker, because really they simply shouldn't, otherwise how are they are a top level player? 

[petertr]

It would be much better if they actually used the range of ratings so that we can see who's playing well at a certain level.  6 should be solid, not bad.  Hell, its above 50% already.