Rating Calculation - Strange Result(s)

Hello, and thanks to Eugene for making the Genie scout, it's brilliant.

Just downloaded the new version and was browsing some ratings, when I noticed that Bordeaux' Ulrich Rame is rated higher than Carasso. This seemed strange, so I checked their respective ratings one by one, and the rating coefficients in Genie scout, and can't explain the results.

Carasso vs Rame: Aerial +2, Command of Area +1, Communication =, Eccentricity +4, First Touch -4, Free Kick Taking +4, Handling +1, Kicking +2, One on Ones =, Penalty taking +7, Reflexes +2, Rushing Out -3, Punching +7, Throwing +3, Aggression +5, Anticipation -1, Bravery =, Composure +1, Concentration +1, Creativity =, Decisions +2, Determination +2, Flair +4, Influence -4, Off the Ball +1, Positioning =, Acceleration +5, Agility +3, Balance =, Jumping =, Natural Fitness +1, Pace +6, Stamina +2, Strength =, Consistency +1, Dirtiness +5, Important Matches +2, Injury Proneness +3, Versatility =, Adaptability -1, Ambition +2, Controversy +1, Loyalty -4, Pressure =, Professionalism -3, Sportsmanship -3, Temperament -2. CA +18 (153 vs 135).

The overall ratings are Rame 75.43% and Carasso 71.42%. Looking at the default rating coefficients this doesn't seem right, any idea what's going on? Has anyone else noticed strange results like this?

I've included every single attribute and based on the above Carasso should be more highly rated (his only significant negatives are +4 eccentricity and +7 punching, but he has +18 CA and higher or equal rating in the highly weighed goalkeeping attributes like reflexes and handling), their height is the same, the only significant difference is footedness (Carasso can only use his right foot) so I am really stumped. I even tried changing the rating coefficient for eccentricity to 0, but still Rame appears better. Any idea what (if anything) is wrong?

→
This post was edited by gphotopoulos (2010-03-29 13:28, 2 years ago)

Maybe it's because Ramé has 17/20 for his weak foot, while Carrasso has 1/20. You can't set up how the ratings are affected by footedness, it seems.

Similarly, my Cristian Mora has a 76% rating (13 weak foot) even though he's not actually anywhere near that good.

This also seems to happen for all other positions, with any two-footed players being seen as God Incarnate.

It's all down to the footedness. I think I remember seeing something on the SI forums about how a player whose passing is high but only one footed is not as useful as someone with good passing who is both footed. Not sure quite how it works in terms of actual ratings, but certainly a keeper who can only kick with one foot when clearing under pressure is not going to be as good as one who can kick well with either foot.

Yes, but the weight this thing puts on footedness is *extreme*. I have a keeper who should be rated 67-69% and is rated 76% simply because he can use both feet.

Well, if the weight placed by Genie scout on footedness is consistent with the weight placed by the game itself, then that's perfect, the purpose of Genie's ratings is to give an idea how well a player will perform in the actual game.

That of course doesn't mean that it's ok for FM2010 to be so unrealistic that a team's reserve goalkeeper is rated higher than it's starting goalkeeper although the latter also has better attributes and CA. It seems Carasso managed to overcome the footedness shortcoming in real life, maybe the game should give him a chance

This is still broken in 1.11.