(match) grading system in FM so strange

[Feron]

Hello, I don't understand it.
players seem to get grades between 5.something and 10?

I mean, why?  Why would anything start at 5.x?
in Germany we have grades between 1-6, or when you do your A-levels it's 1-15
In England there is this A,B,C,D etc.    but of course it would not start at C or D

I am sure I am missing something in not understanding it but what is it?

[XaW]

The rating is from 1 to 10. The higher the better. I think SI have said that 6.8 is defined as "average", so anything over it means better than average, and lower is worse. 10 is prime Messi, 1 is.... Ali Dia?

[Feron]

I've never ever seen anything below 5.x
Maybe 1 means if my little brother was playing he'd get a 1 but that doesnt make much sense, they should consider that we only have professional footballers here and standardize it accordingly.

6.8 clearly is not the average when 5.x is the lowest ever witnessed score and it goes up to 10.
And even if this was the case, why not make 5 the average?

Anyways, thanks for your reply haha

 

[CFuller]

I've seen a few 4.x ratings on the newer FMs, but they are extremely rare.

It's just how the rating system generally works here in the UK. Most publications work on a 1-10 scale, but you almost never see them give anything below a 4. There was a popular football magazine I used to read many years ago where their lowest match rating was a 4, which they called 'Abysmal'. 5 was 'Poor'.

That might explain why anything around 6.5 to 7.0 is generally considered an 'average' rating on FM.

It's a similar thing in other forms of media. Some music, film, video game review sites might have a 1-10 or a 1*-5* rating scale, but they might not use every point of the scale - most ratings are around 6-8 or 3*-4*, with hardly anything getting a lower rating unless they are especially bad.

[DarJ]

4 hours ago, CFuller said:

I've seen a few 4.x ratings on the newer FMs, but they are extremely rare.

It's just how the rating system generally works here in the UK. Most publications work on a 1-10 scale, but you almost never see them give anything below a 4. There was a popular football magazine I used to read many years ago where their lowest match rating was a 4, which they called 'Abysmal'. 5 was 'Poor'.

That might explain why anything around 6.5 to 7.0 is generally considered an 'average' rating on FM.

It's a similar thing in other forms of media. Some music, film, video game review sites might have a 1-10 or a 1*-5* rating scale, but they might not use every point of the scale - most ratings are around 6-8 or 3*-4*, with hardly anything getting a lower rating unless they are especially bad.

When I went to school in Italy you could go for a test and only write your name then submit and you'll get a 4 but technically the scale goes from 1 to 10

[Maviarab]

6 hours ago, XaW said:

The rating is from 1 to 10. The higher the better. I think SI have said that 6.8 is defined as "average", so anything over it means better than average, and lower is worse. 10 is prime Messi, 1 is.... Ali Dia?

Surely on a scale of 1-10 then 5 is average.....jus sayin'.....

[XaW]

1 minute ago, Maviarab said:

Surely on a scale of 1-10 then 5 is average.....jus sayin'.....

In math yes, and shockingly 1+1= 2!

However, in football though, not all is logical and ratings follow how UK newspapers usually does it.

[samuelawachie]

56 minutes ago, XaW said:

In math yes, and shockingly 1+1= 2!

However, in football though, not all is logical and ratings follow how UK newspapers usually does it.

1 + 1 = 2     (not 2!).

Why put the prime? There's no mathematical reason to do so.

[Maviarab]

1 hour ago, XaW said:

In math yes, and shockingly 1+1= 2!

However, in football though, not all is logical and ratings follow how UK newspapers usually does it.

Football being logical or not is really not relevent though isn it?  As for Uk newspapers, well say no more, your statement sums up the stupidity of it.

Film critic ratings don't work like this, very little does in fact.  So why are what rags do suddenly the norm instead of what is logical or correct?  Not having a go at you (though your response was banal).  Either the rating system needs changing or use the logical correct useage of a sliding scale of 1 to 10, which would mean 5 is bang average, 2 would mean the player should not be being paid for being on the pitch and a 10 would mean utterly exctraordinary...you know...you just like most other sliding ratings work.  At this point may as well just make it 1-5 and Si can make 3 as the average.  Would make far more sense because as other's have stated, in my 20 years + playing time, I could count the number of 5 or less ratings on one hand.

Why is the ratings of a footballer any different, because it has nothing to do with football being illogical or full of chance.  Someone was either average or they were not (meaning they were below or above)...and that average is 5.  Argue that all you like, doesn't change what is I'm afraid.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Maviarab

[Hovis Dexter]

When everybody first goes no to the pitch they all show as 6.7 so I use 6.6 to 6.8 as an average, to take into consideration any rounding.

[DarJ]

50 minutes ago, Maviarab said:

Football being logical or not is really not relevent though isn it?  As for Uk newspapers, well say no more, your statement sums up the stupidity of it.

Film critic ratings don't work like this, very little does in fact.  So why are what rags do suddenly the norm instead of what is logical or correct?  Not having a go at you (though your response was banal).  Either the rating system needs changing or use the logical correct useage of a sliding scale of 1 to 10, which would mean 5 is bang average, 2 would mean the player should not be being paid for being on the pitch and a 10 would mean utterly exctraordinary...you know...you just like most other sliding ratings work.  At this point may as well just make it 1-5 and Si can make 3 as the average.  Would make far more sense because as other's have stated, in my 20 years + playing time, I could count the number of 5 or less ratings on one hand.

Why is the ratings of a footballer any different, because it has nothing to do with football being illogical or full of chance.  Someone was either average or they were not (meaning they were below or above)...and that average is 5.  Argue that all you like, doesn't change what is I'm afraid.

I feel like some of you guys just like to complain. 

How is it hard to understand that anything below 6.7 is bad and anything above is good?

If 2 people did a test and one got 3 out if 10 and the other got a 4, does it matter? They both failed.

A more reasonable request in my opinion would be to ask for details about what goes into the ratings the same way it would be beneficial for both students about to look at what they got wrong so they don't make that mistake anymore 

[XaW]

1 hour ago, samuelawachie said:

1 + 1 = 2     (not 2!).

Why put the prime? There's no mathematical reason to do so.

Curses! Hoisted by my own petard! Fair enough, I'll take the L on that one!

1 hour ago, Maviarab said:

Football being logical or not is really not relevent though isn it?  As for Uk newspapers, well say no more, your statement sums up the stupidity of it.

Film critic ratings don't work like this, very little does in fact.  So why are what rags do suddenly the norm instead of what is logical or correct?  Not having a go at you (though your response was banal).  Either the rating system needs changing or use the logical correct useage of a sliding scale of 1 to 10, which would mean 5 is bang average, 2 would mean the player should not be being paid for being on the pitch and a 10 would mean utterly exctraordinary...you know...you just like most other sliding ratings work.  At this point may as well just make it 1-5 and Si can make 3 as the average.  Would make far more sense because as other's have stated, in my 20 years + playing time, I could count the number of 5 or less ratings on one hand.

Why is the ratings of a footballer any different, because it has nothing to do with football being illogical or full of chance.  Someone was either average or they were not (meaning they were below or above)...and that average is 5.  Argue that all you like, doesn't change what is I'm afraid.

It was a bit tongue in cheek, but I guess tone is hard to convey in writing. I'll keep this less banal.

While I am of a staunch logical mind, there are certain things that has become normalized even if it's not the most logical thing. I've also played this game since the early 90s, so the rating system is firmly implanted in me, even if 5 should be the average if you think about it logically. But then again, there are a lot of much more important stuff that does the same. While most civilized countries have adopted the metric system, there are still a few left with the imperial... And even worse, we all use a 24 hour clock! A 10 hour day with 100 minutes per hour with 100 seconds per minute would be much more logical, would it not? Still, I think you find very few people active pushing for it, even if it is more logical. We might have to redefine a second to match, but still!

The point of this ramble is that logic is still not the most viable option for everything, and since I've seen a few people around here complaining about useless features, I'd say revamping the match ratings would fall firmly into that category for me. Why change something that most people are used for very little apparent benefit? I just don't see it.

[CFuller]

I can still remember when Championship Manager had a basic 1-10 scale and used all of it. 10s and 4s were much more common, and the worst performances could get ratings of 3, 2... and even 1. 

But as has been mentioned before, the new ratings system is probably more in line with those used by UK media outlets. Whoscored's match ratings are pretty similar.

Looking at Man City's squad, Erling Haaland has a rating of 7.77 and Kevin De Bruyne is on 7.63, so not too far off what we might see from the best players on FM. But Man City are a very good team. How about we look at the ratings Whoscored give to a very BAD team? Sorry in advance, Everton fans...

Everton's worst players who have 10+ PL starts this season are Conor Coady (rating 6.46), Nathan Patterson (6.55) and Dwight McNeil (6.57). Coady's lowest match rating was 5.74 against Brighton, and McNeil's lowest was 5.82 against West Ham. Patterson's lowest rating in the PL was 5.95 against Brighton, though he also got a rating of 4.81 in the EFL Cup against Bournemouth.

Whoscored's rating system isn't perfect, obviously, but I'm not seeing many match ratings below 5.5.