Full back ratings

[Blue 4 Life]

Am I the only one who continuously has full backs given low ratings? I've replaced my left back twice and my recent purchase, Antonov should be more than decent enough to be a solid 7 out of 10 in the Premiership, but his current average rating is just under 6.5 which is lower than any of my other outfield players.

My right back, Iorfa is being rated slightly better, although I'm thinking this is probably because he's like a centre back with his jumping and heading. I signed Cresswell from West Ham initially and playing a basic full back/defend instruction, he under performed and I sold him. Cresswell had low stats for strength, jumping and heading.

Would playing a full back with average jumping and heading under full back/defend have a big impact on his ratings? Antonov has a 15 for strength on my save, but only 12 or jumping and 11 for heading. I'm beginning to think playing a left footed centre back with pace at left back might be a better option?

[Blue 4 Life]

Just realised I've posted this in the wrong forum. Move this to the tactics and training forum please mods.

[bowieinspace]

Funnily enough, I saw someone the other day suggesting full backs are getting ratings that were too high.

Personally I've only seen really high ratings when playing a formation with no wingers, as the full backs/wing backs do a lot going forwards. However I can't say I've had an issue with full backs consistently getting low ratings.

It's a bit of a cliche, but it could be something in your tactics that causes it. Can you post your tactic?

[summatsupeer]

I've never had an issue but then I pretty much only use FB-S, FB-A, WB-S or WB-A. They only get bad ratings if they actually play badly (giving ball away, not defending well etc).

I would suggest its your tactics, am I reading that right and your using FB-Defend for LB and RB?

[Blue 4 Life]

Funnily enough, I saw someone the other day suggesting full backs are getting ratings that were too high.

Personally I've only seen really high ratings when playing a formation with no wingers, as the full backs/wing backs do a lot going forwards. However I can't say I've had an issue with full backs consistently getting low ratings.

It's a bit of a cliche, but it could be something in your tactics that causes it. Can you post your tactic?

I can't currently post my tactics as I'm in work, but I will try to later. My full backs are on a basic full back/defend duty.

I play a 4-1-2-3 DM Wide system with a normal back 4, anchor man sitting in front, 2 centre midfielders on Support duty and 2 inside forwards supporting my complete forward. I instruct my inside forwards to close down, push forwards and tuck inside, which could leave my full backs a little exposed, but I don't see that as a concern as I think my anchor man should give added protection when necessary?

I've also given my full backs the PPI of push wider, as I found this stopped me conceding from so many crosses. Strangely, I don't currently have issues with my right back (who has the exact same instructions as my left back) and my weakest left back (stats wise) seems to be performing better than any 'better' left back I have tried, although my weakest left back has a 15 stat for jumping, which is why I'm querying if it really makes a big difference having a full back with a good jumping stat?

My 2 right backs are both strong in the air and seem solid enough, so under my current tactic, I'm thinking it might be best for me to sign another left back with a good jumping stat. Obviously, I'm welcome to any other suggestions mind!

[bowieinspace]

I can't currently post my tactics as I'm in work, but I will try to later. My full backs are on a basic full back/defend duty.

I play a 4-1-2-3 DM Wide system with a normal back 4, anchor man sitting in front, 2 centre midfielders on Support duty and 2 inside forwards supporting my complete forward. I instruct my inside forwards to close down, push forwards and tuck inside, which could leave my full backs a little exposed, but I don't see that as a concern as I think my anchor man should give added protection when necessary?

I've also given my full backs the PPI of push wider, as I found this stopped me conceding from so many crosses. Strangely, I don't currently have issues with my right back (who has the exact same instructions as my left back) and my weakest left back (stats wise) seems to be performing better than any 'better' left back I have tried, although my weakest left back has a 15 stat for jumping, which is why I'm querying if it really makes a big difference having a full back with a good jumping stat?

My 2 right backs are both strong in the air and seem solid enough, so under my current tactic, I'm thinking it might be best for me to sign another left back with a good jumping stat. Obviously, I'm welcome to any other suggestions mind!

Sounds to me like the bad ratings could well be due to them not contributing enough going forwards.

With two IF's, you have no real wide threat, and the full backs won't venture far up and will play safe. With an anchorman and two cm's on support, your full backs could be at least on support and their ratings would probably improve immediately. Honestly I don't think there's any real need for them to be on defend.

[summatsupeer]

Sounds to me like the bad ratings could well be due to them not contributing enough going forwards.

With two IF's, you have no real wide threat, and the full backs won't venture far up and will play safe. With an anchorman and two cm's on support, your full backs could be at least on support and their ratings would probably improve immediately. Honestly I don't think there's any real need for them to be on defend.

This.

Your DL/DR will probably have limited passing options with a packed center field, no wide options and not allowed to attack the space. Why are you keeping 5 players on defend duty? How are you expecting the other 5 to create chances?

[Blue 4 Life]

Well I was conceding from way too many crosses so I opted to switch my full backs to defend duty, although this was with a different tactic. I will try switching them to support duty like you've both suggested and see if it makes a difference. Cheers.

[herne79]

Forget ratings.

Watch what your players are doing instead. Are they doing the job for the team that you want them to? If they are, then great - don't change anything. If they're not, make small adjustments until they are playing how you want them to.

We all like to see our players with high ratings, but doing the job they are supposed to be doing is much more important. If you have already adjusted your system to help you stop conceding from crosses, and it's now working how you want, why change anything else?

[summatsupeer]

Well I was conceding from way too many crosses so I opted to switch my full backs to defend duty, although this was with a different tactic. I will try switching them to support duty like you've both suggested and see if it makes a difference. Cheers.

Defend duty doesn't suddenly make a player a better defender. Unless they were free crosses due to the player being out of position it won't affect it.

If your conceding from crosses check:

1) your GK, does he command his area, is he good in the air etc?

2) your CB's positioning, marking and aerial ability.

3) your FB's positioning, marking and aerial ability. do you have little fullbacks who are vulnerable to crosses from the other flank? (you've mentioned yours already, just putting this his for completeness)

4) how are they getting space for the cross? is your fullback outnumbered due to lack of defensive support from the wide player in front of him? do they lack physical stats to stay close or get totally beaten?

if your AML/AMR isn't helping your DL/DR enough you might want to make them ML/MR so they naturally position deeper. Just use Wide Midfielder and add PI to make them play like a IF.

[gunnerfan]

I also have Cresswell on my squad. On average, he gives me solid performances with ratings just above 7.00. However, every few matches, he gives out with a real clunker - 6.1 or 6.2, usually making a grievous error resulting in a goal for the opposition. I have a decent backup for him - Zeki Fryars - and I sub him out if I see his performance going south (ie. lower than 6.6). I will be looking to replace him before my next season.

[Cleon]

You guys realise that 5.5 is the average rating right and anything above that means it's not a low rating in the way FM works? Sure goals and assists give more. But subbing or selling because someone has lower than a 6.6 rating is absolutely ludicrous .

[Blue 4 Life]

You guys realise that 5.5 is the average rating right and anything above that means it's not a low rating in the way FM works? Sure goals and assists give more. But subbing or selling because someone has lower than a 6.6 rating is absolutely ludicrous .

Cleon, my issue is when I win a game, the rest of my team usually has a minimum of a 6.8 rating, but my left back only gets a 6.2. This is continually happening on my save.

I see the point you're all making. My right back may be still getting a decent rating because he's a dominant, commanding defender. My left back isn't as dominant a defender, he's physically weaker and with my current tactics, has very little options to create, which might be the reason my left back always has a lower rating.

I will switch my full backs to support duty and see if it makes a difference.

[nico_france]

Almost done with my 1st season in Ligue 1

The 4 best avg rating in the League ? 4 FB.

[GunmaN1905]

I've been using the same formation as you, Blue4Life, and my fullbacks are usually among the highest rated players.

FB-Auto on control/fluid with one DM-D in front of the back four.

Inside forwards on support with close down more to support them in defense.

Fullbacks act more like wingbacks, tho.

I have get further forward, cross more often, stay wider and run with the ball down the flank instructions, with look for overlap in team instructions.

Actually, when I think of it now, fullbacks have always been my best performers with basically every formation.

They've done amazingly well in 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-1-2 with the same instructions.

[gunnerfan]

You guys realise that 5.5 is the average rating right and anything above that means it's not a low rating in the way FM works? Sure goals and assists give more. But subbing or selling because someone has lower than a 6.6 rating is absolutely ludicrous .

I'd love to see the basis for that, because my experience in the game doesn't bear that out at all. To begin with, every player at every level I've played starts at 6.8, which suggests that 6.8 is the mean, not 5.5. Moreover, any rating under 6.0 (including the opposition) in any match I've played is extremely rare. So, 5.5 can't be the mean.

What IS possible (and I have no way of knowing for sure if this is the case) is that 5.5 might be the mean rating if every possible team played every other possible team - from the EPL to the NY Red Bulls youth team. But they don't, so that renders the hypothetical mean irrelevant in judging a player's performance.

Cleon, you are a big proponent of watching what is actually happening in the match and tweaking your tactics based on that. Moreover, because the ME is a difference engine in which what we see is a representation of the result of the numbers "under the hood", we also rely on the numbers that the in-match widgets indicate. My experience with Cresswell is that when his rating dips to 6.5 in the first half, he is on his way to a stinker and I get him the hell out of there. If you've had success with your players consistently posting performance ratings of 5.5, I'd love to see it and learn how you did it. But nothing you've posted that I've seen reflects that.

[gunnerfan]

I suspect that what you really mean, Cleon, is that 5.5 is the median of the highest and the lowest POSSIBLE ratings. That is very different than actual average performance.

[s1111]

Attack duty fullbacks will generally get higher ratings because they make lots of key passes, the measurement of which is broken in FM16 as it records 5-10 yard sideways passes near the corner of the box as key passes.

At the end of the day ratings aren't a particularly good way of judging performances as they rely entirely on racking up statistics, which are either broken like key passes or not weighted properly for some positions (such as defensive midfielders not gaining much rating for interceptions and tackles).

If your players are doing what you want on the pitch then it doesn't matter what ratings they get.

[gunnerfan]

At the end of the day ratings aren't a particularly good way of judging performances as they rely entirely on racking up statistics, which are either broken like key passes or not weighted properly for some positions (such as defensive midfielders not gaining much rating for interceptions and tackles).

If your players are doing what you want on the pitch then it doesn't matter what ratings they get.

Personally, I don't use ratings as anything other than a trend indicator. It's true that they are statistics-driven, but then so is the entire ME (statistics + probability).

[bowieinspace]

If I see a player with a consistently low rating (below 6.8 or so in a team that's doing fairly well), I would start to look at whether it's just that player, or if the rating for any player in that role or position is similar simply because it suggests a weakness in the system. Obviously if the team is winning then fair enough, happy days either way and you might not act on it.

If my full backs were constantly getting ratings below 6.5 while the rest of the team weren't, I'd for sure be taking a look at that as I feel in that situation they could probably be doing more. In this case it seems fairly obvious that with an anchorman protecting the defence and two IF's sitting narrower, the full backs could do a lot more in the attacking sense if they weren't on a defend duty. There may be a further issue if the low ratings are because the full backs are exposed defensively, which is completely possible with two IF's sitting narrower and not helping to defend the wide players. In that case a defend duty on the full backs only papers over the cracks - either way the low full back ratings are a clue that something could be improved.

[Blue 4 Life]

Switching my full backs to support duty has made a difference and my left back is now getting improved ratings. I'm also looking more dangerous out wide with my full backs getting forwards, I've already scored more regularly from my full backs putting crosses into the box. Thanks guys!

[bowieinspace]

Switching my full backs to support duty has made a difference and my left back is now getting improved ratings. I'm also looking more dangerous out wide with my full backs getting forwards, I've already scored more regularly from my full backs putting crosses into the box. Thanks guys!

Happy days!