retired_coffeebabe

I'm not sure how common this is but from what people have been saying I might as well just scrap my youth team, take a look at this:

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/3...vudinesgz7.png

retired_plasal

Yes and no.

I love the fact that good ratings are much harder to get and poor ratings a little easier.

I despide the fact the rating system is so flawed. To get between a 5 or a 7 a player only has to turn up. They have to be abysmal to get a 4 or godlike for a 9. Spread the ratings out a bit. Huge mistakes should be punished.

I've played terrible U18s utterly out of position and with crippingly confusing instructions and they've still only got a 3.

So why not just make ratings between 1 and 5?

Like Gamespots reviews that only need 7,8,9 and Halo3*, having a huge scale if you don't use it is pointless.
VB

* I've never played Halo but I could have written the review of Halo3. Reword hype, give 10, go home and spend the backhander.

retired_chile_83

You should try watching Oxford United then.

retired_tspear

You should try watching Oxford United then. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Ratings are based on the level a team is at, i.e. Kaka getting a rating of 9 doesn't mean a player from Oxford United with a rating of 9 played as well as Kaka did in a Champion's League game.

It's all relative.

Seriously guys, my example of a blind man with two broken legs was not to be taken seriously. A rating of 1 imo would only ever be given if a player wasn't playing in favour of his team AT all - that is: constantly giving the ball away, possibly on purpose; missing absolute sitters, 6 yard shots into an empty goal; scoring own goals, etc. Which is NEVER going to happen - a manager would take the player off, simple as.

Now hopefullu that's all been clarified for the cynics above.

KryptonSean

Two words: Bryn Gunnarsson

Tron

if i had a player on 5 id take him off already.

needless to say, 4 and below....

retired_euluis

And that explains anything.. how? Guessing you mean Brynjar Björn Gunnarsson of Reading?

Anyhow, the ratings scale is useless as is. Why not have the scale 1-3?
I always ask my assman for his view on teamtalks and, with my entire team rated at 7 at half time, he wanted to tell half of them they were doing okay, a few they were playing badly and a few that he was pleased with them. Makes sense, huh?

I'm not saying everyone should be getting a 1 or a 10 but surely a wee bit of diversity would only be good?

retired_tspear

I guess SI would say that the rating is just a summary of everything and that there isn't any simple solution other than to go and check Player Stats.

I think the AssMan does this and checks Pass Completion Percentage, Shots on Target, etc.

So a striker with a rating of 7 may have made plenty of decent passes, but his shooting accuracy had been terrible.

I'm not saying this is exactly right, but just my thoughts.

retired_pamjoseph

Have you EVER seen a player rated as 1 or 2 IRL? Put simply, if ever a player was to receive such a rating he simply shouldn't be playing football... or he's broken both his legs and possibly the use of his eyes! </BLOCKQUOTE>

Then let's say that 10 ar only for gods. I would like to have 5 as an average, so players should start with N/A and play well to have a 7 or 8, and playing badly have a 2 or 3.

KryptonSean

And that explains anything.. how? Guessing you mean Brynjar Björn Gunnarsson of Reading?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if you'll look up a bit, there's a bunmch of Newcastle fans naming players who should have got 1s recently. The post above is giving examples of how a player could get a one. Perhaps I should have quoted.

Yes, I did mean Brynjar. He's been terrible this season and he's lucky Cisse and Oster are injured and Fae "hasn't settled".