Ched

This thread concerns the scores attributed to players for their performances in matches; and the related merits/flaws of the system.

Having read various accusations levelled at the game based on how players are scored (varying from "this stat is worthless" to "the game is hiding the fact it cheats by giving my players higher scores") i decided to look into this, having previously noted that many times a player would play spectacularly well and yet fail to get recognition.

Positives

1) Over the course of a season, the players with the higher average scores are generally those who have performed exceptionally.

Long term the scoring system is fine, the expected players are appearing to score higher overall and you can tell which team members are useless.

2) The 0-10 system is familiar to players. We know a 6 hasn't done much. We know a 7 is doing his job. We know to sub a 5. etc etc etc. Or at least that was true....

Negatives

1) Point 2 no longer appears to be accurate in FM08.

The best example for this is goalkeepers.

I will provide a representative example;

Chelsea vs Derby. (ended 2-0)

Both GKs got 7s.

Cech touched the ball TWICE in 90mins.
One was a 10 yard successful pass, the other a miss-hit clearance that went straight out for a throw in.

He did not make a save.

Steven Bywater made 19 saves.
The 2 goals he conceded where unsaveable (a kaka strike from 15 yards and a lampard pen, conceded by a defender).
Amongst these saves were 6 one-on-ones (although that's for another thread...).

Bywaters passing success was around 60% (approximately) with generally good distribution short, and passable long kicks upfield - if he wasn't kicking towards john terry it would have been higher.

So, can ANYBODY, claim that the 2 goalkeepers performed to the same level??

One did his job but messed up half of it. The other singlehandedly kept the score respectable.

This is just the most prominent example of the sketchy scoring system, there are MANY more.

2) Lack of resolution. 0-10 is not detailed enough. If my team is performing averagely, i get a bunch of 6s and 7s - even an increase to increments of 0.5 would be a spectacular improvement over the current state (and is infact what i would recommend, any more and there would probably be too many problems with it).

3) Scores are related too strongly to goals/assists. I've had my left backs play blinders, and get a 7, because the stupid bloody striker didn't put away one of his crosses; but my right back takes corners, and despite over-hitting 3/4 of them, he gets an assist off one, and gets MOM....

Similarly, with goalkeepers. They can be pulling off save after save, but as soon as the clean sheet is lost, the score drops - regardless of whether or not they could save the shot.

Granted there are more pressing problems with FM, but yet again this is one that has been around for a while and has only got worse with FM08.

I'd produce a thread like this outlining the problems with the match engine...but it would take half of forever.

Pat on the back to anybody who has bothered to read all this

Cheers

SWaRFeGa

Gotta agree with this. My right-back can have a dreadful game, but score a penalty (not hard to do) and manage to get an 8.

Kill Rock Stars

imo a 6 should be both the rating a player starts with, and the rating he finishes the match with if he's had an average game

as it stands, if a key man finishes the game with a 6, he's described post-match as having had an alright game, but if a player gets a few sixes in a row, he's considered to be playing pretty badly, and ai managers will often criticise players for showing this kind of form. the game doesn't seem to have made up its mind as to whether 6 or 7 is an acceptable rating

LFC Lloydy

I think the changes that were made to player ratings in FM08 were a step in the right direction but there is still a lot of room for improvement.

About your negative point 1, I think that in some areas (such as GK) the variation that is possible between player ratings has been toned down too much. It is not true for absolutely everything though.

IMO your idea about putting more detail in, such as changing to increments of .5 is not a good one. The player ratings are meant to be a quick, at-a-glance thing and the current scale of 0-10 is right. Changing it to include more numbers (or having decimals put in) would make it too detailed and just confuse matters, as well as make it less likely to be realistic.

Your third point is correct, player ratings are still too strongly connected to specific incidents such as goals, it did improve a little in FM08 but there is plenty of space for improvement. Although, it could be said that it is realistic in comparison to ratings you will find in newspapers, websites etc... in that the memorable things such as goals will make more of an impact. Like with everything, there is a very fine balance between both extremes that SI needs to find.

leftback in the changing room

An interesting topic to critique - one that hasn't been brought up recently

Blimey - some people are getting quite vociferous on here!

This demonstrates the elegance of a simple points system - coupled with the form ratings you can tell whether a player is enjoying a brief run of form; or is underforming; is (in)consistent

I suspect that the way points are applied has evolved. The system appears to have changed that scores of six and seven now relate to a player 'doing his job' - but he scores six in a side that loses and seven in a side that wins.


I think goalkeepers are a special case when it comes to the scoring system. I will explain my position a few quotes down

No. I cannot argue that simple question. But should the question you are asking be more complex?

There are two issues here:

Case 1) Older versions of CM/FM underrating goalkeepers.

Case 2) Older versions of CM/FM overrating

To follow your example:

Now for some historical context

Case 1: Cech - As most CM/FM players used to find success very easy to come by, their goalkeepers would be often as inactive as yours. Imagine, if you will, the not uncommon case of a goalkeeper who keeps a clean sheet but makes no saves and misplaces his one pass. What mark would he get for that? A six? Or a five for his 0% passing rate? Do we ignore the clean sheet and the overall performance bonus awarded for being on a winning side? Can you imagine the uproar on here with "Peter Cech kept 25 clean sheets but got an average rating of 6.25 for the season. SortItOutSI!!!!!1"



Case 2) - Bywater. yes that's a lot of saves and yes that seems a low score. But you only have to look back to FM 2005 (and Amaroq's marvellous "Sharpening a Rusty Blade" Story in the Stories forum) to see ample evidence of GK's being awarded MoM awards simply because they were under constant barrage; even if they conceeded 2 or 3 goals in a losing performance. This case has to be seen with historical hindsight. The scoring for GK's has evolved - maybe it needs a few more tweaks.

I disagree that it would be a spectacular improvement. However steps of less than 0.5 would be unnecessary.

Agree with goals/assists being too beneficiel. See above for my GK retort.

There's been a few, lost to the mists of time.

It's nay bother. Points to anybody who can spot when I had to start typing quicker!
Cheers[/QUOTE]

Ched

Fair point regarding clean sheets; although i would rather the GKs rating showed HIS contribution to the clean sheet, rather than - he got a clean sheet = 7. As in the case i showed, he did essentially nothing. Due to the fact players start with a 6, if a gk does nothing then a 6 would be a fair representation.

And as to people moaining "Peter Cech kept 25 clean sheets but got an average rating of 6.25 for the season. SortItOutSI!!!!!" - it would happen, but i feel the subtlety of a working scoring system would not be lost on some of us

As to Bywater, yes i remember when my tranmere keeper got higher scores than the rest of my team, it was the perfect representation of what he did in the match, perhaps they've had to tweak it as due to the one-on-one bug the opposition GKs would get MOM every game?

Benoit2

Thats the way you should look at it for goalkeepers. Outfield players will always be involved in a match, goalkeepers not. So to prevent a goalkeeper from having an avg. rating of 6.25 despite having 25 clean sheets, he should have a 7 if he doesnt mess anything up.

Similarly, if you make 20 saves then thats very good, but unless many of them were absolutely world-class saves, you deserve a 6 for conceding two goals which meant your team lost 2-0. (only if they were two penalties or something like that, might a goalkeeper be excused).

If you dont do it that way, ratings for goalkeepers would be reversed. Crappy goalkeepers get high seasonal average ratings because they make so many saves and world-class goalies get crappy ratings. Is that a realistic reflection of how good they are? I know I wouldnt trade Cech for a goalkeeper from a relegation team, even if his rating is 0.5 points higher then Cech's. (which would mean goalkeepers ratings are pointless, because the best clearly isnt the best)

neil220779

Gotta agree with this. My right-back can have a dreadful game, but score a penalty (not hard to do) and manage to get an 8. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Generally, I've got to disagree up to a point. If a winger generally has a poor game, doesn't beat his man, delivers poor crosses, or just doean't get involved, BUT delivers 1 great cross resulting in a goal, then hasn't he kind of done his job?

The game is all about goals and scoring or creating them(or creating good chances at least) then shouldn't players who do this be given a higher rating?

Likewise, players who prevent them at the other end should be given a ratings boost, great saves, mark a striker out of the game etc etc

I do agree however, that scoring a penalty should not push a player up from a 6 to an 8, which happens too frequently.(though in FM07 that "8" would almost instantly drop to a "7")

Seagulls Forever

Sadly FM is a bit rubbish at making the subjective judgement about the quality of a performance. And in that word subjective lies the problem. It's a bit too abstract for FM to work out. The problem is that these ratings have an effect. They affect player reputation and value, they affect morale and they affect 200000 other things. It's broken but it's breaking other things too. FM is a mess.

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 .