Rating vs Goals

[Buffs Mad]

Ratings are based on what a player actually does in the game. Goals and assists are important for ratings but players do a lot more in a game. A player that scores 2 goals but had many more good opportunities and should have scored more is not a 9 performer but 1 that scores 1 from few chances probably is. The difficulty with ratings is some things are punished heavily and some roles get more opportunity to fail than others. Booking affectratings, fouls, misplaced passes....and so many other things that we don't see ).

I can only give examples. My top ST last season had 1 match where he had 4 PKs to take. He came out the game with 2 goals and an assist (iirc) and rated 7 - 2PK misses cost him. Even if it was not PKs he could still have rated 7 if he was missing other 'sitters' (even if they didn't make the commentary, they often don't). It didn't make him a bad player but it did mean he had a bad game (and a slump in form followed due to that and an injury in next game). Yesterday he had 1 assist in a 1-0 win but rated 9. Luckily in commentary I saw he was setting others up with chances they weren't taking so I could justify his rating as 'doing all the right things' and failure lay elsewhere. You can't always prove the rating but I choose to trust them.

It only takes 1 good action to score a goal, good players are more than that BUT goals win games. That's the dilemma.

Always remember its a game and Q does not necessarily translate exactly into ability or performance - 2 players exactly the same Q and atribute spread will perform differently. Real life comparisons don't always make sense but Neuer is a 9* GK but if he has nothing to do then he's a 6 rating and if he only has 1 thing to do and flaps an easy save out for a CK then he's a 5 rating.