Ratings vs Star Quality

[Liquid]

If ratings are purely personal then yes a 1* could get a 7 for tying his boots, 8 if its a very neat bow. The 7* player would need to beat 10 players, finish with a bicycle kick, all the while correctly explaining string theory and whistling Dixie.

I don't think so. Its probably more like +marks for good things and -marks for bad things / the number of people using the Nordeus toilets at lunchtime x the number of times the Nordeus dog licks his nuts + any random number that gives a result between 0 and 10.

PS. If you amended your hypothesis to suggest that in generating ratings there might be a coefficient/multiplier applied based on quality - which means that if a 1* and 7* player did exactly the same things in the same match then the 1* might get a slightly higher rating - then there might be merit in that.

The only thing I don't agree with here is Nordeus people strike me as "cat people". I doubt, very much, dog licking comes into play.

[Liquid]

my players usually perform bad when i get drunk or eat too much chocolate..:| anyone else?^^

I'm not a real fan of chocolate but I have been drinking...A LOT as of late. Maybe that's why I haven't anything resembling a defense in awhile.

[Buffs Mad]

Here's the ratings for my 3rd team that has some 1 star players - 3 friendlies and 4 competitive matches

Highest rating for 1* is 8 (my team), lowest is 5 (opposition - last piccy).