Asunto: Match ratings are a joke

I saw Atlantic bought a 6 million dollar winger earlier this month, saw some of his scores, and wanted to show a shining example.

Here is his player's skills:

Benito Tellez age 27

Stamina: 11
Pace: 15
Tech: 15
Passing: 15
Playmaking: 16
Defense: 10
Striking: 8


Here is my player in similar role:

Toncho Gomozov, age 26

Stamina: 11
Pace: 15
Tech: 16
Passing: 13 (literally just popped the other week)
Playmaking: 13
Defense: 9
Striking: 8

Both players get similar match scores with consistency, upper 60s/low 70's.

Which player would YOU rather have lol


We will see if I can have a player like the first one when I rebuild.

On the contrary, ratings are logical, but they take into account more than just skills (and form).

Tellez had those lower ratings because of his low defender skill + high defensive activity in games.

His only ratings under 70 occurred when he had over 10% of DEF activity.

Last game where he had only 3% of DEF activity he achieved a 75 rating.

When your Gomozov had a high DEF activity (12%) he played for only 62.
(editado)

Just a few thoughts

That is definitely an overpay. Secondary skills play a huge role in ratings. Just look at defenders! You can have divine defenders with 50 marks. You need good secondary MID skills to be up in the 70s.

There is a huge difference between 13/13 vs 15/16 passing/PM and it jumps out during match play

For 6 million 10 defending is a little low but usually those high value players have high defending as well

As always, I appreciate the insight, I just looked at the team match ratings for the season and Atlantic is at 61, and I'm at 65 and I find this incredulous.
I know of at least three starters on his team (besides Tellez) who are superior to anyone I have had starting, ever.


Sebek: Yes, and this is part of my aggravation because my team 'looks' better than it is. I have only had one double magical PM/passer on my team ever. He's the guy who just got injured last week. What I have had is more well rounded players who show up good on paper, but reality? Not so much. Again, part of why the formula is bizarre, even if Borkos can explain it.
It's why I finally had to resort to one wing formations, because no matter what I tried, my midfield stinks unless I keep three centrally.

I thought, originally when I started, I would have more decent training time then I did.

Very valid discerning factors from both Borkos007 and Sebek, let's remind ourselves of a few others too:

- Light injury: it won't get reflected in the player's value, but will dock him some 10% of his potential. The effect seems to be the more severe the further away recovery is (or maybe there are players considered a day away who are actually already healthy).
- Cohesion (teamwork) and tactical discipline. A new player will have that against him.
- Player height: if the player has a chance to trap or intercept high passes and fails, it can cost him.
- The stamina reserve: especially among the less-developed players, emerging on the pitch late, being able to use their stamina and not putting a foot wrong will elevate a player's ratings over those of the displays afflicted with a 'duller' time and mistakes stemming from being more tired.
- The tactical setup. Players who are, with respect to the opposition, positioned in ways suiting their skills better (for instance, more sparsely if they're to be a passing or sprinting outlet, but tighter if they tackle or use their technique) will have a better time and thus ratings even with similar levels of activity clocked. Offsides and fouls, technical mistakes play a role too: if a player can routinely afford a safe pass with a high bypass rate, his ratings will reflect that.

There are however areas where penalties to ratings after some actions aren't as severe as the effect these actions have on the score.

It can be seen sharply when a player miscontrols and puts the ball into his own net or into the path of a marauding opponent. Or in the wide context of offsides.