Statistics of players playing for less than 30 minutes

[Buffs Mad]

Previously you got this - a 0 rating for short match time.

You could only 'check' a 0 rating if it was a starting line up player that got it. eg injured or subbed within 20 mins.



Now a rating is shown for any player that gets match time (afaik because I've not had a < 5mins match time player yet)....but again you can only check this in the Match Report ratings screen if its a starting line up player that gets the under 20 mins rating.



(I have 1 sub that I routinely use for a booster if I've not already subbed anyone and his Squad Screen Form stats are 777 for the last 3 matches but he actually played in 4 matches during that period and has had 7787 but the 8 was a 'short match time' ratings so is not recorded.)

[Tactician]

The rating 0 was wrong. A player cannot get 0 for having played less than 20 min.
One explanation for your substitute got an 8 is that he did well for the 18 min, while some others who played the whole match got a 7 because they were rated for their performance during the whole match.
If the player did not do enough in the 18 min for a rating of 8, then there is something wrong with the new rating system.

[Tactician]

I would like to add that I still feel that there is something fishy with the rating system despite the update that was done.

[Buffs Mad]

The rating 0 was wrong. A player cannot get 0 for having played less than 20 min.
One explanation for your substitute got an 8 is that he did well for the 18 min, while some others who played the whole match got a 7 because they were rated for their performance during the whole match.
If the player did not do enough in the 18 min for a rating of 8, then there is something wrong with the new rating system.

You miss the point. The rating system prior to the Day 3 change was, afaik, that, in t11, any and every player who got less that 20 mins match time was awarded a 0 rating. These 0 ratings were not recorded in the stats history iirc. Thats the way it was designed.

The change to ratings on Day 3 meant that those playing under 20 mins now get a calculated rating but they are still not recoreded in stats history.

That's the point of the thread.

This could in fact also be having a knock on effect in the League Rankings.

[Tactician]

You miss the point. The rating system prior to the Day 3 change was, afaik, that, in t11, any and every player who got less that 20 mins match time was awarded a 0 rating. These 0 ratings were not recorded in the stats history iirc. Thats the way it was designed.

The change to ratings on Day 3 meant that those playing under 20 mins now get a calculated rating but they are still not recoreded in stats history.

That's the point of the thread.

This could in fact also be having a knock on effect in the League Rankings.

Sorry, my mistake, I did not read the previous posts.

It should be counted in the statistics; maybe they missed this 'detail'.

[Alexandre Labrecque]

It appears to me that the ratings are in fact a real time calculation that we just do not get to see except at the end.

A player who subbed in for 15 mins and got an 8 was playing at an 8 level during that 15 mins. Goals and assists do have a big impact on boosting ratings as yellow/red cards do the other way. There are clearly other factors involved in the ratings though as I have recently seen my best player by far get an 8 and MoM as a ST without a goal or assist while the players that scored for me obviously didn't win MoM even though they also had 8 ratings.

It suggested to me that his overall level of play was very high. Controlling the ball, passing, creating chances, getting shots on target, and pressing/winning the ball all likely were very good for him and made him the best player in the game even though the actual scoring plays were by others.

The ratings for defenders also suggest this. I regularly get high ratings from CB's and FB's with especially CB's winning MoM quite often without goals or assists, even the occasional MoM to the keeper happens, though rarely for me as my opps do not get many chances usually leading to only 1-2 saves and sometimes not even a single on target shot. I think they have made the GK ratings better because they are no longer being punished for matches where they didn't have much to do where last season I was seeing 5 ratings for matches that my GK never faced a shot in, which is just wrong IMO (that should always be a 7 to me). It could just be that they made the ratings for GK/CM higher without real change, hard to be certain.

I would like to see them generally fix the way the engine treats CM's. No matter how I play they get very few assists. I regularly will see 9 goals and 0 assists over a season or something similar. If a CM has enough chances to score 9 goals he should have many more assist opportunities IMO. My way of evening things purely to make my record book look less weird is give the CM the CK specialty and duties. It is artificial for sure but at least I do not have to look at the records and see 9/0. 9/21 looks much nicer. It also used to be a way to help raise the CM's overall match ratings but now that isn't really needed.

I wonder what my CM from the last team would look like now........He was getting 20+ goals and 15+ assists a season, competing with the AM's in the score chart. He would have to be getting a lot of 9/10 ratings now.

[Buffs Mad]

It appears to me that the ratings are in fact a real time calculation that we just do not get to see except at the end.

A player who subbed in for 15 mins and got an 8 was playing at an 8 level during that 15 mins. Goals and assists do have a big impact on boosting ratings as yellow/red cards do the other way. There are clearly other factors involved in the ratings though as I have recently seen my best player by far get an 8 and MoM as a ST without a goal or assist while the players that scored for me obviously didn't win MoM even though they also had 8 ratings.

It suggested to me that his overall level of play was very high. Controlling the ball, passing, creating chances, getting shots on target, and pressing/winning the ball all likely were very good for him and made him the best player in the game even though the actual scoring plays were by others.

The ratings for defenders also suggest this. I regularly get high ratings from CB's and FB's with especially CB's winning MoM quite often without goals or assists, even the occasional MoM to the keeper happens, though rarely for me as my opps do not get many chances usually leading to only 1-2 saves and sometimes not even a single on target shot. I think they have made the GK ratings better because they are no longer being punished for matches where they didn't have much to do where last season I was seeing 5 ratings for matches that my GK never faced a shot in, which is just wrong IMO (that should always be a 7 to me). It could just be that they made the ratings for GK/CM higher without real change, hard to be certain.

I would like to see them generally fix the way the engine treats CM's. No matter how I play they get very few assists. I regularly will see 9 goals and 0 assists over a season or something similar. If a CM has enough chances to score 9 goals he should have many more assist opportunities IMO. My way of evening things purely to make my record book look less weird is give the CM the CK specialty and duties. It is artificial for sure but at least I do not have to look at the records and see 9/0. 9/21 looks much nicer. It also used to be a way to help raise the CM's overall match ratings but now that isn't really needed.

I wonder what my CM from the last team would look like now........He was getting 20+ goals and 15+ assists a season, competing with the AM's in the score chart. He would have to be getting a lot of 9/10 ratings now.

I agree, but I still feel Goals/Assists have 2 big an impact. For Strikers thats their job and a DCs rating should be determined more by defensive actions rather than the big boost if they pop in a header at a CK.

I too would've loved to see my favourite MC's ratings under the new system - 26 goals and 16 assists last season.

On the live ratings theory you can see the strange effect happening in the League Rankings.

The ratings below are actual but the numbers I used to make it fit are ofc not the only 'solution'.

Well I'll be interested to find out what is producing it. My Left Winger just said to me....

"Boss, I rated 10, 10, 9 and that wee nyaff in the other side got 10, 9, 9. But the League Association reports me as 9.46 and him 9.49. "

Ofc my Striker said "Who cares, I've got 9.64 "

PS. If this was a task given to me and this was reported back I'd think "Oh crap, I've used the calculated match rating in the averaging instead of the match award."

But, I'll wait on further developments.

EDIT: couldn't resist a fiddle over coffee to make things fit.

Player 1 - 10 9 10 = average 9.64
Player 2 - 9 9 10 = average 9.49
Player 3 - 10 10 9 = average 9.46

One solution would be that the calculated match ratings (pre-award, before rounding)

Player 1 - 9.75 9.42 9.75
Player 2 - 9.48 9.48 9.51
Player 3 - 9.51 9.51 9.36

It still makes more sense to use the rounded, awarded rating that is displayed post match so that averages would be

Player 1 9.67
Player 2 9.33
Player 3 9.67

Just to keep my left winger happy

Could be a combined effect of both short match ratings and/or using 'un-rounded' ratings. But who knows yet - hopefully a balanced solution will come.