Subject: [Change] Rating match calcul

I made five substitutions with two minutes to go to emphasise this point, and look:
My team had 55.2, but if you calculated the average based on minutes played, it would be 68.3
https://sokker.org/comment?matchID=43766143
rating nº minuts rating for the total
1 Flavius Madincea GK 87 90 87,0
2 Ignace Dussaux DEF 62 88 88 60,6
S Nuninho Mantas DEF 22 -88 2 0,5
3 Radenko Bogdan DEF 63 90 63,0
4 Giovani Natzuka ATT 70 88 88 68,4
S Iuliu-Virgil Pungă ATT 33 -88 2 0,7
5 Marek Wojewoda DEF 65 90 65,0
6 Patroclo Demurtas DEF 59 88 88 57,7
S Adalsindo Landeiro DEF 30 -88 2 0,7
7 Anghel Buia MID 67 88 88 65,5
S Israel Michelato MID 25 -88 2 0,6
8 Mihail Tiutiu MID 64 90 64,0
9 Pablo Nourredine DEF 70 88 88 68,4
S Maximos Sevastis DEF 17 -88 2 0,4
10 Lech Korbiel MID 71 90 71,0
11 Hồ Mạnh Hoàng ATT 78 90 78,0
751,5
*=751,5/11=68,3

Its just based on appearences, not minutes

Yes indead.
It were quite simple to change those present calcul to another accounting minutes played.
Thanks manuelmarques for your very enlightening example.

If in one hand this rating is few important for the game effect
in the other hand he is very interesting to understand how a match could be won or lost.

Whelse coach isn't happy to see he won against a best rated team? It's talking about the relevance's team systeme choosed.
But this rating system needs to be adjusted to be more accurate.
(edited)

I think you've mistaken me for another user!

For sure!
I offer you all my apologies :-)
I have corrected that.

no problem

It even seems to me that a player who is sent off (red card) or injured (leaves the pitch without being replaced) should only count the minutes they were on the pitch.
Example:
if they were sent off in the minute 65 and had a rating of 70, they would count as 65 × 70 / 90 = 50.6

As long as it counts that way in the overall match rating, then everything is good.

This is probably priority -10000000 right now...

off course.
But it were so simply to solve ...

Players have stamina determining how much energy they have available in an outing. They use more of that energy if they undertake difficult or sophisticated maneuvers. Players appearing later on can spend a greater proportion of their time on the pitch in that valuable high energy mode. Hence their elevated ratings - and they only reflect their increased contribution to the team effort, so the notion of them being high not misconceived.

And it's fair too, in actual football half of the goals in extra times come from the substitutes.

> indication if a manager is a good about the tactics he uses by performing with a lower rating <

Definitely more complex than this. First off, players decent in everything tend to get higher ratings from just hanging around on the pitch
than the more specialized players, who are only able to use their stronger suits a fraction of the time. But if they do, they might be able to outplay
those decent players.

Also, the better players within a team tend to get more action than the rookies, so their comparative influence on the proceedings is higher than their influence on the ratings. But keep reading.

In turn, players positioned in ways enhancing their productivity have their individual ratings increased too. Like if they're unmarked often.

Apparently though team performance extends beyond any directly involved individual. Tactical discipline and teamwork matter more than they let on in the ratings. If your cultured defender is playing alongside a freshman, he'll get beaten more often in one-on-one challenges. Swap the freshman out and that stops. Or change a young goalkeeper for a regular and even if neither of them gets to kick the ball once, your link-ups will look better with the proficient one behind the actors.

change a young goalkeeper for a regular and even if neither of them gets to kick the ball once, your link-ups will look better with the proficient one behind the actors

wtf is this chat gpt slop