Rating vs Goals

Hi all

So this season I bought a new AM to replace my old one (I know the new one is older but I needed to rebuild my team fast as I was massively outmatched in the cup and partially in the league).

New AM = 7* (45) Age = (22) Goals = 1 (in 5)
Old AM = 4* (33) Age = (20) Goals = 7 (in 9)

As you can see the New AM is a lot more skilled. However my old (younger) AM is still netting more per game.

Will my new AM get better the more I play him or are you just stuck with what you've got unless you train him more?

Who would you play? As I'm still playing the old 4* AM lol

Cheers

Saints

This is a Performance vs Q question. I take the Q as potential. Its performance that decides and not just goals look at ratings, assists etc.

If you have the opportunity to do so bring the new guy on as sub with more than 20 mins to go (to get a rating) and see if he performs - if he doesn't, ordinarily I'd say sell him off and try again with another but that's not so easy now you let him gain 7th star.

Hi thanks. Didn't realise it's 20 mins for a rating so I've learned something. I actually assumed subs don't get ratings lol.

Both players have 7.5 average form. The 7 * does have 2 assists in 5 matches and the 4* has 0 assists in 9.

Basically they're ratings are the same just that the much weaker rated player scores more goals.

How does form and skill actually work. If a player averages 7.5 form can he get better and start scoring more? Will his form increase or is form for attacking positions 100% reflective on goals scored/assists? E.g if you want a player to net 1 a game will he need to be a solid 8.5 form player or can a 7 form player score every game? I know form is form, but is it realistic and how much can form change?

I'm just confused, as my 7* player is on the same form as my 4* player but scoring less goals.

I assumed it would be like this:

Most goals scored

1.) 7* with 8 or 9 form
2.) 7* with 6 or 7 form
3.) 4* with 8 or 9 form
4.) 4* with 6 or 7 form

Surely form should be reflective of the players actual skill. A 3* player might be in 8 or 9 form but he shouldn't be scoring more than a 7* player in 6 or 7 form?

Lets say 7 form is average. If Messi is having an average game he will probably score a goal. If Theo Walcott is 7 form (his average) he should score less than Messi? Even if Walcott is having a great game at 8 form he might not score.

Confused 😀

Form is very confusing. I look at the form to decide who to play. Last match i played my cm 4 star quality got a 5 rating. so the rating said he didnt play good. Still he scored a goal and an assist.. so how the hell he could get a 5 rating. i won the match 3-0. I think if a player scores or gives much assists but have low rating, just play put him on the pitch..

So basically if an attacker scores much just play him despite his form or quality i guess same with the midfielders. For defenders and goalkeeprrs i would look at the form.

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. :p

Olddd.

Quote:

---

Always remember its a game and Q does not necessarily translate exactly into ability or performance

---

and rates not necessarily translate to performance or success of the team. I won a double with my two main MCs with 6,2 - 6,3 avg rate, same with my GK,
and my DMC about 6,5 avg (and this was because I used him in some games as DC).
But for me the most important for AML/AMR is the talent to score.
In many games I play with only one ST, so if my wingers can't help in scoring
no win :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikolgiorgos

and rates not necessarily translate to performance or success of the team. I won a double with my two main MCs with 6,2 - 6,3 avg rate, same with my GK,
and my DMC about 6,5 avg (and this was because I used him in some games as DC).
But for me the most important for AML/AMR is the talent to score.
In many games I play with only one ST, so if my wingers can't help in scoring
no win :p

---

and whats wrong with 6 average for players that are not much involved?

My wingers are not scoring that regularly in my 451V but my MCs are....can't have everything ;)