If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
"Peter Cech kept 25 clean sheets but got an average rating of 6.25 for the season. SortItOutSI!!!!!"
What it should be is, a clean sheet is equal to 7 no matter what. Because we assume that the GK is somehow partly responsible for keeping that clean sheet, even if it simply means not making any mistake.
But for a GK to have 25 clean sheets, he should have 7+ average rating. Because as much as the only goal win a game, The one or two saves Peter Cech would be making in most of those 25 games should see him getting an 8. 7 for the clean sheet, and an extra point for making the save when it matters.
01-23-2008, 03:53 PM
Critique of player ratings - is 0-10 (or realistically 4-9) enough? Post #12
Argh, I've just had an absolute nightmare of a replay against Liverpool that relates to this post considerably.
While I agree that the reward for the smallest of achievements within a match rating wise is a bit much as things stand I also find that the penalty to a players rating for a serious mistake also seems a little too small.
I was 3-1 up away to Liverpool in the aforementioned replay. In injury time they score a second which my players couldn't do much about. However, shortly after Torres snaps a shot at my keeper who parries the ball in what should have been a safe direction towards my CB with nobody anywhere near him. He then proceeds to nudge the ball into my own net with my GK still recovering from his save. In to Extra Time, my other CB goes on to concede two ridiculous penalties, one of which is saved but the other is scored. The game finished 5-3 to Liverpool, who I had outplayed in the initial 90 minutes, and my 2 CBs get 6's while my left back, who as far as I could see did nothing wrong, certainly nothing as wrong as the actions of my CBs, gets a 5.
I was of course furious with my centerbacks but could only fine one for 2 weeks (unfair apparently) because the other released a statement saying he regretted conceding the penalties he did in Extra Time. Both defenders should have had ratings of 5 at MOST for their hand in my departure from the FA cup and to say that fining them 2 weeks wages for what they did is nothing short of laughable. Had the option been there to fine them for 3 or 4 I surely would have
01-23-2008, 03:56 PM
Critique of player ratings - is 0-10 (or realistically 4-9) enough? Post #13
One of the main problems is that the scoring system is not severe enough. Are there any 3s scored in regular play, let alone 2s and 1s? Same goes for the upper side of the scale, though to a lesser degree. 10s are rare, but possible.
In a more severe ratings system, the 2s and 3s would be a bit more common. Variations would be more common and ratings would become more meaningful.
Related is the interpretation of the numbers, that is, the inherent bias of a 1-10 ratings system. For one, there is no neutral stat. 6 is positive, 5 is negative. Or, if 6 is the neutral stat, there are far fewer positive ratings available than negative ratings.
A transition to a more severe ratings system with more possible variations, along with a system with a better balanced neutral rating (that is, an odd amount of ratings!) is best.
01-23-2008, 10:01 PM
Critique of player ratings - is 0-10 (or realistically 4-9) enough? Post #17
Originally posted by Masquerade:
*sigh* 'to say that fining them 2 weeks wagesfor what they did is unfair is nothing short of laughable
Well I for one would not only think it was unfair but utterly disgraceful if I was fined two weeks wages for a general mistake at work, as I expect would anyone. No doubt would you, if it happeened to you.
01-23-2008, 11:02 PM
Critique of player ratings - is 0-10 (or realistically 4-9) enough? Post #18
well when you consider the ramifications of that mistake can be quite dire if it were, say, in the final of a cup competition then 2 weeks wages as a fine can easily seem like a soft reaction. Considering certain trophies and their subsequent prize funds, not to mention possible qualification for other competitions through the success in another, are significantly higher than the sum total of two weeks wages of any player playing today I would see such a punishment as more than justified if not a bit soft and insufficient
01-24-2008, 12:42 AM
Critique of player ratings - is 0-10 (or realistically 4-9) enough? Post #19
I've got no probs with it as it stands, been the same for many many years...if it ain't broke and all that. If a players average is above 7 - he's doing well, 7.5 - very well, below 7 - you probably want shot of him.
One thing I would like to see though, is the option to view a players stats since you took over only...useful if you move mid season.
Presumably the last AI manager wasn't getting the most out of his players, therefore the stats for the whole season don't give a fair reflection of how they perform under your expert management...would serve to wipe the slate clean for everyone, to use the well worn management cliche.
01-24-2008, 06:47 AM
Critique of player ratings - is 0-10 (or realistically 4-9) enough? Post #20
Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:
I think a 1-10 rating is adequate, however I have a number of issues with the current way of calculating match ratings.
1. GK's appear to be rated using the same formulae as outfield players so pass percentage for example plays far to high a role in determining a GK's match rating.
GK's urgently need their own formulae for calculating match ratings.
2. Errors. It appears that a player is only penalised for an error during a game if this error actually results in a goal. If the centre-half plays a sloppy ball that is intercepted by the opposition striker and then the GK bails him out with a wonder-save then the defender isn't marked down for his error. On the other hand, if a defender makes a key tackle as the opposition is in the act of scoring and the ball runs to a player who subsequently scores, it is classed as a poor clearance and a mistake and he is marked down accordingly.
3. All defenders marked down when a late goal in sonceded. You are winning 5-0 in the dying minutes and the game is in the bag. Your centre-half is robbed when in posession and the attacker goes on to slot past your GK and the score ends 5-1. Youe left back who has scored 1 goal and created 2 others and been brilliant all day is marked down from a 9 to an 8 through no fault of his own and the other 2 defenders are marked down from an 8 to a 7.
PENALISE MISTAKES, NOT SCORE-LINES.
4. 10's. A hat-trick should generally mean a 10 score.
5. Can't be bothered with any more .
:thup:
Agreed. The 1-10 system is no problem per se, but it needs to be more sensitive along these lines. Add also the factor of substitutes being disadvantaged. It sometimes causes me not to use my higher average-rating players as late substitutes - an issue that would not be a factor for a real manager.
.
Linear Mode
