Dannyb01y 1,693 Report post Posted December 30, 2015 I think these need looking at. My goalkeepers constantly get a 6 rating in matches even when keeping clean sheets or facing 0 shots on target. Surely the base rating for any player is 7? Its just funny to see the opposition concede 4 goals and get a higher rating. Neuer is getting a 6 or 5 every match for clean sheets yet gets an 8 when I lost 3 - 0 (because I forgot to do my team). :/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cam Lucas 10,085 Report post Posted December 30, 2015 Agree Keepers should be gettin 8 if they get CS and make say 3-5 saves and so on. Weird when you see a 5 with a CS or 1 conceded but 7 saves etc not realistic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dannyb01y 1,693 Report post Posted December 30, 2015 Match 1: I win 4-0: my goalkeeper faces 1 shot on target = 6 rating. Their goalkeeper faces 15 shots on target, concedes 4 = 7 rating Match 2: I win 3-0 my goalkeeper faces 0 shots on target = 6 rating. Their goalkeeper faces 13 shots on target, concedes = 10 rating?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dannyb01y 1,693 Report post Posted January 4, 2016 Cup final I win 2-1. My goalkeeper faces 2 shots on target, concede 1 = 6 rating. Their goalkeeper faces 6 shots on target, concedes 2 = 9 rating. Quite clearly there's some very simplistic formula for goalkeeper match rating at work here where because the opposition goalkeeper has a higher percentage of shots on target saved or something they get a great match rating, whereas most of the time my goalkeeper is facing ZERO or very few shots on target gets a rubbish 6 or less rating. I checked out the guy above me and the league and his goalkeeper is also getting a lower rating in almost every game he wins... I checked out the bottom of the league goalies last 6 ratings: 10 (lost 6-0) 9 (lost 4-0) 6 (lost 1-0) 9 (lost 2-3) 6 (lost 1-2) 10 (lost 1-0) Average 8.33 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nico66 2,893 Report post Posted January 5, 2016 I agree. The algorithm that calculates the rating for goalkeepers is definitely screwed up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thiagocrf 12 Report post Posted January 12, 2016 Well, I guess I understand the algorithm used for goalkeepers. The rating is individual, it shows the player's individual contribution for the team's effort. If your goalkeeper faced 2 shots on target and conceded one, he conceded 50% of the shots faced. If the adversary goalkeeper faced 20 shots on target and conceded 5 (and his team lost), he still stopped 75% of them so he definitely deserves a good rating. It also works in the other way: something I always look when analysing a defeat is the GKs percentage of saves. If the rest of the team played okay, the match stats are even, the other team shot twice on goal and scored twice, the defeat is probably the goalkeeper's fault and he usually has a really bad rating (after all, he stopped 0% of the shots). Sometimes it is really flagrant: the entire time has 6-7 and the GK has a 4. There is probably also a bonus depending on the number of shots on target: it is much harder to keep a clean sheet if you face 20 shots compared to 2 shots. So even if in the example above the GK 2 faced 10 shots and conceded 5 (also 50%), he would deserve a better rating then GK 1 that only stopped 1 shot. It's a bit like real life. At least in Brazil, very often we see goalkeepers stand out in smaller teams, because for obvious reasons they have a lot more work to do during matches. On SM they'll have better ratings. So in conclusion: if your GK gets a 6 and your team wins... It's a good sign. He didn't have to work a lot Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nico66 2,893 Report post Posted January 13, 2016 Well, I guess I understand the algorithm used for goalkeepers. The rating is individual, it shows the player's individual contribution for the team's effort. If your goalkeeper faced 2 shots on target and conceded one, he conceded 50% of the shots faced. If the adversary goalkeeper faced 20 shots on target and conceded 5 (and his team lost), he still stopped 75% of them so he definitely deserves a good rating. It also works in the other way: something I always look when analysing a defeat is the GKs percentage of saves. If the rest of the team played okay, the match stats are even, the other team shot twice on goal and scored twice, the defeat is probably the goalkeeper's fault and he usually has a really bad rating (after all, he stopped 0% of the shots). Sometimes it is really flagrant: the entire time has 6-7 and the GK has a 4. There is probably also a bonus depending on the number of shots on target: it is much harder to keep a clean sheet if you face 20 shots compared to 2 shots. So even if in the example above the GK 2 faced 10 shots and conceded 5 (also 50%), he would deserve a better rating then GK 1 that only stopped 1 shot. It's a bit like real life. At least in Brazil, very often we see goalkeepers stand out in smaller teams, because for obvious reasons they have a lot more work to do during matches. On SM they'll have better ratings. So in conclusion: if your GK gets a 6 and your team wins... It's a good sign. He didn't have to work a lot I think a GK that keeps a clean sheet should get a high rating regardless of how many shots he had to save because, in most cases, he will have contributed to the clean sheet by keeping his defense well organised, shouting instructions, etc., Also remember that shots on target are not necessarily saved by the GK. In some instances they may have been blocked by defenders (even though this is never mentioned in the match commentary I agree). A GK that faces 20 shots and manages to save all but 5 by playing extremely well should, I agree, receive a rating that reflects his individual performance. However, those stats also suggest that the opposition attackers played pretty well too and perhaps should probably earn a higher rating? It is this that seems wrong to me with the present way that ratings are calculated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
