How about if the top rated player got a SKILL LEVEL boost !

Maybe make it at mid season and again at end of season, so managers can make a judgement decision on whether or not to CP the 'man in form' (top average rated player)

or, if a player rating hits 100 in total, the player gets a 1SL boost, as long as his PU was not already at maximum of 10 allowed.

It adds an interest-value to the player rating, and gives an interested added statistic to follow also.

Window dressing - sort of like the match commentaries?

You know your star striker didnt really make that mazy run from the corner of the 18 yard box?


GMcD.

100% behind this suggestion.

Yea great Idea ! I support this one too!

How does this seem for a player rating score? (RAT)


Each player starts with a rating of 5 (RAT5).

Points are added or subtracted from this.

+1 for all MF, WG, FW if you get a shot on goal
-1 for all SW, DF, if you allow a shot on goal

No goal

+1 for GK, SW, all DF if the shot is saved

Goal

+1 to player for the assist
+3 for SW, DF +2 for MF and +1 for WG, FW to the goal scorer
+1 for all DF, MF, WG, FW for a goal

-2 for the GK that allowed the goal
-1 for SW, all DF that allowed the goal

Final whistle
+1 to all the players of winners, and -1 to the losers.

+1 to all players who lasted full 90 minutes


possible tweaks:
every goal conceeded could be allocated to 1 defender to blame (last DF mention in match comm text, or at random) and that DF loses -1

+1 to a player mentioned in match comms who blocks a shot from happening


Then some corrective text so only 1 player rating of 10 per team allowed, one rating of 9, two rating of 8 maximum, and whatever 5, 6 or 7's. Losing team should have max rating of 7.

A hattrick of 3 goals earns a player a 10 rating.


RAT = 9 if a GK loses zero goals but shots faced in match > 5

If total assists by player >1 then RAT minimum is 7

If match comms state Man of the Match then RAT minimum is 8

If Mn >31 <46 then RAT max is 5

If Mn <30 then RAT max is 4

If Sv > 4 than RAT minimum is 8 (if GK)

If Sv > 2 than RAT minimum is 7 (if GK)

If Gl = 1 then RAT minimum is 7 (all positions)

If Gl = 2 then RAT minimum is 8 (all positions)

If Gl > 2 then RAT minimum is 9 (all positions)

If Sh > 2 then RAT minimum is 7 (all positions)

If DP = 10 then RAT maximum is 4 (all positions)

If DP = 4 then RAT maximum is 5 (all positions)

The top half of ratings outlined above seem to flow OK.

The bottom half of corrective rating and tweaks if very much trial and error I think.
Certainly some reward for goal scorers and also GK who make alot of saves is preferable.

However a player coming on at T=89 should certainly not expect to get a high rating at all. Neither would a player being red carded and letting his team down by being sent off.

I think what the commish proposes is a fair starting point because it might take some time to narrow down all the ins/outs of this player rating suff and changes will need to be worked in but if we gotta, we got to start somewhere.

Agree with DFA, top half looks good and the conditionals is where it might need some tweeking.

Surely if a player wins MOTM though he should be the 10 pointer?

I don't think the whole team should be penalised because one of their number got a card.

And am I just blind but I can't see anywhere on the website that tallies up Assists?

It seems we have 2 subjects here.

Al wants some ideas for player ratings to be tweaked to reflect what happens during a game in order to identify more clearly who is earning his corn and who needs to be shot.
Steve gave a detailed note of how points are currently allocated with all players starting at 0, yet many games do end up with nearly all players on 6.
Any tweaking here would only be of use IF a players total ratings (or an average per game) was available for inspection - it would be a tool for selling or buying such a player:

For Sale DF Smith 3/19 (RAT 7.35) or perhaps For Sale MF Jones 2/24 (RAT 4.9)

On that basis we need to get a system that rewards or punished the players accordingly - just fiddling the numbers so we get ratings from 10 down to 1 won't interest anybody but the 2 managers at the game. A player being able to adjust his rating throughout his career could be the basis for future sales and purchase negotiations.

Link the above with another suggestion of a mid season/end of season SL boost for the top ranked players

At the end of a mid season, the player in every team with the highest rating (as above) gets the 1 SL boost - I am not keen on players hitting 100 getting 1SL as it is back to successful teams getting more of the cake as more of their players reach the figure - keep it simple and let every team get 2 in a season (or 2 every mid season as long as it is the same for all).

The main theme is how to get the figures for each player:

Lots of suggestions being made and many will involve Al spending muchos time on his computer. I just add to these suggestions but in more general and less individually way:

All players start on a 4, then

GK win/draw/lose at home +4/+2/-3 GK win/draw/lose away +5/+3/-3
SW/DF/DM win/draw/lose at home +4/+2/-4 SW/DF/DM win/draw/lose away
+4/+3/-3
MF/MA win/draw/lose at home +4/+2/-3 MF/MA win/draw/lose away
+4/+3/-2
WG/FW win/draw/lose at home +4/+2/-2 WG/FW win/draw/lose away
+5/+3/-2

Extra point to be gained by a GK with a clean sheet, or a player who scores a hatrick
Player being sent off loses 2 from whatever he would have got for the result (MA losing away being sent off would get -2 plus -2 + starter 4 = 0)
Players being substituted can either get the rating for the match score when they leave the field, OR based on a percentage of the final result. In a 3-0 win a FW at home playing 60 minutes would get 2/3rds of the +4 to add to his starting 4, the sub would get 1/3rd of the +4 etc.
Because of using different players for different matches each player's average ratings will start to become different pretty soon after
the season progresses.

Of course this is just another thought on the subject, and will have many flaws.....

With a SL boost for top rated players getting some negative chat on other forum threads, how about we try push forward the need for current player ratings to be tweaked.

As we agreed, too many player ratings of 6.

David (FOR) said: "A player being able to adjust his rating throughout his career could be the basis for future sales and purchase negotiations. "

I think that is a great idea.
Add a stat on average player rating, and while it may seem 'window dressing' to some, sesl IS a fantasy football game and a stat like this would be an interesting add-on for player analysis I reckon.

Wrong Adrian it's not window dressing to some, just me as seems abundantly clear from the number of my fellow managers who have quoted me in this thread alone

I believe it is window dressing - it does not and should not have any bearing on the game. If I lose they are low if they win they are high.
By all means revise them but please do not use them to influence SL.

It has as much relevance as the similar ratings in Sunday newspapers for real life football.

Player ratings WILL be tweaked, but first we need propose a clear guideline for Al Sellers to try and start coding in to his software.

With all the 6 out of 10 ratings, player ratings require an overhaul (or tweak at least) as if they are going to be part of the output from games (which they already are), then it may as well have some purpose. Or at least some meaning for this stat.

A small award could be given for highest rated age 0 player per division, or highest rated Captain at season end. Just random thoughts, but its a stat that could add a little interest I think.

Negative comments are fine, and all input is encouraged on the forum.

Try consider what is good for all 48 managers and sesl as a whole when posting thoughts. No new rules are going to suit everyone and all teams, but if it adds an interest to the game as a whole, maybe its worth giving it a go?

Along lines of David FORFAR suggestion, but I think his conditions would result in 2 out of 10's!


All players start on a 5 (whether in 1st 11, or come on as a sub),
then

GK saves >1 +1, >3 +2, >5 +3 >9 +4
GK goals conceeded >0 -1, >1 -2, >2 -3

SW/DF/DM/MF win/draw/lose home +1/0/-1
SW/DF/DM/MF win/draw/lose away +2/+1/0

MA/WG/FW win/draw/lose home +2/+1/0
MA/WG/FW win/draw/lose away +3/+2/0

Player match time played >59 +1, >89 +2

so subs playing less than 30 mins get no bonus, and so injured players may get lower rating also.

Extra 1 point for every goalscorer per goal.
Player being sent off -2

Players being substituted can either get the rating for the match score when they leave the field, OR if easier to code the software then use the ending result like other players.

Olmec rounding needed so max 1 player per team can get 10, max 2 players per team can get 9, max 3 players per team can get 8.

eg. GK makes 5 saves, loses 1 goal, but team wins match 2-1 and plays full 90 minutes
5 + 2 - 1 + 2 = 8

eg. DF wins 2-1 at home and plays 60 mins
5 + 1 + 1 = 7

eg. WG wins 2-1 away and plays 65 mins then sent off
5 + 3 + 1 - 2 = 7

Looks pretty good Stewart but I'd give negative scores to FW and WG if no goals or maybe if no shots to reflect the fact that they didn't get into good positions.

Also as it's mostly FW that get the goals your scores will mean lots of 10s for FW when the team wins - 5 + 2 (90 mins) + 2 (win) + 1 (goal).

I'd probably do away with the win/lose/draw part and just have +/- for goals scored/conceded.

The above outline seems a fair suggestion.

If it can be coded easy enough, then worth going ahead and reviewing how it pans out with player ratings.

I would not reward shots, as more shots a player has and does not score, then that is a bad thing, rather than reward them.

Giving +1 for a goal seems easiest option, and then roundings at end to 'tweak' the ratings so no more than 1 player getting 10 seems way to go.