How to understand why a player gets his match rating?

[Smx]

Previously, it was possible to find out the assistant's comments on the match rating of the players. This facilitated dialogues with them. How to understand now what a player gets a match rating for?  How do you communicate with your players about good / bad match ratings? After all, there are so many topics!

[Prepper_Jack]

It's a good question. I've been viewing their match analysis under the player sheet in reports->analysis to see what they have done well, and what they haven't. Also I check in Data Hub->Matches->Last Match->player statistics to get a quick overview of what everyone did.

It would be nice to have some other staff feedback about it, as the data can be a little incomplete to take anything away from, and no options that make sense to talk to them about. Like, a defender might have a 6.3 rating. You go in, and it looks like he was basically not in the game. No interceptions, no tackle attempts.. no headers, while his partner has 11 tackles, 17 won headers. Then again no mistakes that led to goal or anything like that, so why the 6.3? It could have been a tactical thing, where they were just playing it on the other defenders side. Could be just general laziness, but you don't really get the option to tell them that outright... just some cryptic statement about tackling consistently and not in spells. Well.. not tackling throughout an entire match is pretty darn consistent.

This particular situation happened to me recently. I think I told a left back he needed to tackle more consistently, and he gets irate and goes into something about midfield letting him down. What does this have to do with anything, I think. I did notice that this was while our midfield backup player was out on international duty, and some people (including this particular influential left back) were dissatisfied with management during that week because they thought we lacked depth in midfield. So he was refusing to do anything for a game because a player went on international duty? It's the only thing I can think of because the midfield played well in that game, and regardless of whatever they did it has no bearing on whether or not he attempts a single tackle against an opposition winger. It's cryptic nonsense like this that really does need fleshing out a bit more and at least some in game guidance.

As it sits now, I'll have chats about certain things with players, like their striking not being good enough.. but if it looks like they were being grumpy about something, or just being lazy, and doing nothing, I'll just fine them, and keep fining them until they start doing their job.

[ACDBEFV]

This has been one of my gripes with FM for a years now:

Why have a scale of 1-10 for performance, if 95% of performances will end up between 6.4 - 7.0 ?

Think how badly a player needs to play to get a 5.9 match rating... It's unbelievably rare. Anything lower than that is practically unheard of. So immediately we're not even using over half the scale!

 

And then, how do players get above a 7.0 ? Simple - they get an assist or they score a goal. That's basically it. So a player can be playing terribly, get one assist from a corner, then they're showing a 7.3 immediately. How can you learn anything from the ratings at all? The player could be losing the ball all game, but one assist and it's redeemed everything.

 

Basically the player ratings are useless in their current form. Either you convincingly win and everyone gets high ratings (what have you learned here, you already knew they were playing well as you dominated the game), or it's a close game and the only players with good ratings are ones who've scored or assisted. Again, what have you learned? Nothing. You can already see who scored and assisted.

 

 

I'd love for SI to overhaul the entire ratings system. Get rid of the decimal points too. Instead of going from 6.6 (average performance) to a 6.5 (poor performance!), why not go from 5 (default) to 4 (poor), or to 7 (good), and give more weighting to in-game performance outside of scoring or assisting. Pass percentages, tackling, headers, ground covered. FM knows all the stats, why not make them impact on the ratings in a more meaningful way?

[fc.cadoni]

There is a TON of factors how a player get a rating. 6.8 is the new average, so playing 6.8 is good, 7.0 is excellent, 6.5 is ok, 6.2 is time to see the bench. 10.00 is playing the match of his life right now until the next one (if).

*Player rating has been changed @ACDBEFV two years ago.

Edited December 1, 2021 by fc.cadoni

[niklas88]

Player  ratings att completely flawed and @ACDBEFV is correct. His suggestion is how it should work.

Why have a scale of 10 when the whole scale is not used.

All players should have an equal chance of getting a good rating regardless of position.

[DarJ]

1 hour ago, niklas88 said:

All players should have an equal chance of getting a good rating regardless of position.

I think they do. The way the ratings work now is different from for each role so for example if you're a playmaker and you have decent numbers and tackles and interceptions but you don't have any key pass, your rating won't be that high because that's your "main" job as a playmaker