Your own eye v player / match stats

[Brodie21]

I find my own judgement of a player can vary from his stats - on some occasions, considerably. I have players with very average stats who are my key players, whilst I have some players with great stats who underwhelm.

Also, my mark out of 10 for players can vary a lot from the match card.

Anyone else find this? Any thoughts?

 

[kevhamster]

If you're not watching the full match (which most of us don't), you're not seeing everything the player does.  But, I do find that the match stats can be a bit wonky anyway.  I do feel like goals and missed penalties have way too much bearing on a player's match rating.

[vrig]

23 hours ago, kevhamster said:

If you're not watching the full match (which most of us don't), you're not seeing everything the player does.  But, I do find that the match stats can be a bit wonky anyway.  I do feel like goals and missed penalties have way too much bearing on a player's match rating.

There's a bunch of stuff they'll do that has no effect on ratings whatsoever. I remember having a winger win 5 penalties in as many games terrorising fullbacks, but his average rating was something like 6.5 over that spell.

The pass before the assist doesn't seem to be credited in any way either. Not does general link up play or progressive carries/passes. Basically the ratings often feel like a tally of duels won/lost with a dollop of "did they score or assist?" and a sprinkle of "did they miss a sitter?"

This wouldn't matter at all if poor match ratings didn't affect player development and media interactions as they do.

[NineCloudNine]

5 hours ago, vrig said:

There's a bunch of stuff they'll do that has no effect on ratings whatsoever. I remember having a winger win 5 penalties in as many games terrorising fullbacks, but his average rating was something like 6.5 over that spell.

The pass before the assist doesn't seem to be credited in any way either. Not does general link up play or progressive carries/passes. Basically the ratings often feel like a tally of duels won/lost with a dollop of "did they score or assist?" and a sprinkle of "did they miss a sitter?"

This wouldn't matter at all if poor match ratings didn't affect player development and media interactions as they do.

I think this has improved somewhat in FM24 - my DMs at least are getting better ratings just for doing DM stuff - but overall I agree with you that the rating system remains too heavily weighted to goals and assists. I get that it's the scorers who win MOTM and player awards, so I'd not change that, I'd just like to see more of the nuts and bolts stuff - such as you describe - recognised.

[st4lz]

Are the match ratings in real football much better than those in FM, by the way?