|Allan (Memphis) - Saturday 08-04-07 14:32|
|Here's a draft that my colleague Mark Creasey created to revamp the Ratings system. Please take a look at it and comment.|
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
+1 for GK, SW, all DF if the shot is saved
+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
+1 to all the players of winners, and -1 to the losers.
+1 to all players who lasted full 90 minutes
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 earms 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)
|Steve (Asteria) - Sunday 08-05-07 17:09|
I disagree with players getting penalised for being booked. If Rooney plays a blinder, scores a goal, sets up 2 more and gets booked he's going to get more than a 5 rating.
I like some of the tweaks - defender to blame, but I'd have this random say 50% it's a no fault and 50% it's poor marking (for instance).
Same with some goals. No matter how bad a player you are or how good the GK is there's always a 10% chance of a goal if the shot is on target. So this 10% part should be an unstoppable shot that has no blame attached to the GK.
Whatever happens I'd suggest a few games with new ratings before they were used in any +SL bonuses. I expect there will be plenty of tweaks needed.
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Sunday 08-05-07 20:52|
Generally favourable, although it does remove the possibility of the losing team's GK getting the MoM award. GS plays BB and Whiskey gets a hattrick; big deal. But if the GK faces 24 shots and only lets in 7, that's pretty damn good. So drop the max losing team rating of 7, maybe. Anyway, in favour of the general idea.
I can't see anything about any SL bonuses, Steve? Oh, you mean the 100 total proposal.
|Graham (Barcelona) - Monday 08-06-07 6:55|
|I disagree about discipline being used to determine ratings. I know many players who are a bit "roughtie-toughtie" and yet they can veruy easily be the MoM in that quaint thing called real-life.
I also think the standard rating should be 5 - no matter how long you are on - then reduce/raise it from there based on the other criteria
Clean sheets or probably a high number of saves from a keeper should also mean they would be eligible for MoM - even if in the losing team.
|Mark (Scotland) - Tuesday 08-07-07 8:10|
|To reply to a few points made so far, I should say I just threw these rating figures together and have not worked out the permutations or implications.....|
A clean sheet GK is unlikely to be on a losing team! But I understand your point, and noted above
Man of Match I do not know how its arrived at, but a "GK losing 7 goals from 24 shots" would not get a high rating in real life from any newspaper I have bought. Had he saved 22 out of 24 that would be impressive, otherwise the newspapers may suggest after losing 7 goals he should be "dusting down his CV resume" :-)
Fair point on a yellow card not costing a player his high rating, but I stand by my thought a red card should reduce a player rating somehow.
Steve is correct these new player ratings will need alot of testing and tweaking, and I offer up SESL as a testing ground for new ratings during our season 19, but NOT to reward any SL though.
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Thursday 08-09-07 17:44|
Well, I was matching up BB and GS, to be fair, Mark. But true enough, true enough. 22 of 24 is definitely more noteworthy. :-)
|Carl (Hollywood) - Saturday 08-18-07 14:37|
|Definately agree the yellow should not reduce a rating but the red absolutely must. |
Other than that, think the best think is for Mark to trial and tweak during his next season.