GK Match Ratings - reliable?

[Real]

How are they calculated.  I just won 1-0 against the pre-season league favorites away, with my GK saving 10 shots, including a penalty and four 1v1s.  He got a 7.6 rating, which is good, obviously, but he didn't get POTM.  If a striker gets 3/4 goals (to my mind an equivalent contribution), he gets 9+ every time.

[johnhughthom]

They are a farce and have been for years. I uploaded lots of examples a few years ago and was told it was under review. Nothing has changed.

[FrazT]

There have been issues with how the match ratings, particularly for GKs have been calculated, for some versions now, so SI are aware that they are not accurate at both ends of the activity scale.  They appear to be OK for an average match, but underrated for a great GK performance and overrated when they have nothing to do in a big win.

[bleventozturk]

55 minutes ago, FrazT said:

There have been issues with how the match ratings, particularly for GKs have been calculated, for some versions now, so SI are aware that they are not accurate at both ends of the activity scale.  They appear to be OK for an average match, but underrated for a great GK performance and overrated when they have nothing to do in a big win.

Exact observation that many posters here have made since so many years. But we never hear why it doesn't get addressed year after year. 

 

[WorcesterLegend]

well, most GK are underrated anyway, for example, the best GK in La liga in 13-14 was Keylor Navas, he wasn't in Real Madrid that season, he was in Levante, a mid table team, and that will be always the case, most good GK are in mid table or below teams, then they get the jump and they go from stopping 10+ shots to stop 3 at best.

i think the way it is now is fine, just need to boost the 10+ saves games or those important stops at critical moments so GK can get POTM if team wins 1-0 i see that some strikers can get a 6.8 for scoring 1 goal and playing badly so why does a GK to get a similar rating for stoping 8 shots?

[Svenc]

At the same time though, why should a Forward get a great Rating because he's sticked a  couple balls inside the net? That may be just like his job, man. And in the odd match, he may have actually underperformed despite scoring 3/4.

Keepers of mid- to lower table Teams always stop the most shots (regardless of who they are), which is only natural. In particular if they prefer to play defensive Football and/or have developed a specific style of Play, like Burnley, which suggests they try to make it easier for their keeper to save. Thus their consistently high amount of saves regardless of season and keeper says limited about the difficulty of the stop (e.g. the actually Performance).  Now granted, Fm doesn't allow this sort of tactical Micro fiddling. But if you ever sticked ten men behind the ball, you would find that your keeper has a much easier time (and you would barely concede of very little shots in a match in General). Thus if FM were to bump the Ratings just by the amount of stoppages, without taking the actual difficulty into account, then that were as useless as the Forward who gets a bump for scoring.

Both would put an inherently bias towards the keepers of lower table Teams -- who as to FM a) Play Deep sitting defensive Football for most of the Season and b) concede and save the most shots by that mere fact alone. As well as the forwards of top Teams, who are typically on the attack most of the time as well as tend to have the most shots (and usually, Goals). Hopefully, long-term, ratings work that way one day, no less as realistically, the keeper has the massive edge over the Forward in most situations from the go (Football is an absurdly low scoring sports on average considering its playing time for reason -- and it is not one of lack of attempts).

Here's praying that they don't overhaul this towards considering the CCC in-game stat when taking "difficulty" as to ratings into account. As in: The more CCCs a keeper saves…. You may as well roll a ten sided dice.