| viktor |  |
 |
UKG66 wrote:
PStimpel wrote:
UKG66 wrote:
PStimpel wrote:
For the player rating: a player with good skills and a bad rating istnt a bad player, a player with good rating and bad skills is much worse. |
Does this "rating" play any role in the course of a match? Or it's just a thing that gives you a "sort of" idea of approximately how good the player is? |
Based on knowledge from the other game: Rating is important, but not the matchwinner. We saw a lot of games where the lower rated team won...
The mix of rating, skills, tactics and formation win a game... |
Sorry, don't mean to be a pain in the a***, but I still don't understand what "rating" is... Is it just a number that serves no other purpose than to give some idea about the player's skill level (and therefore completely useless and I could forget about it entirely), or does it give a hint about some hidden "x-factor" (so we should take it into consideration, when assessing a player)?
How can you mix "rating" into whatever mix to win a game? Skills, tactics and formation all agreed. |
A player with good player rating is better than a player with bad player rating and the same skills.
A player with good skills will play better than a player with bad skills and the same rating.
Both skills(except physical) and ratings are limited by the talent the player has.
The player rating can be attributed to experience gained (its not exactly that). For eg In RL a rookie with good skills will do worse than an insanely experienced player with slightly worse skills.
The rating increases as the player gets time in the middle. So one school of thought says pick a player with good skills and play him long enough to get his rating high.
The other school of thought says pick a player with better player rating and train him to improve his skills.
I beleive if you have a player with rating 3 stars and imp skills at (3,3,3), he will perform better at that position than a player with 1/2 star and imp skills at (5,5,5).
But right now most teams have players with similar ratings (.5 to 2 max) and no coaching staff. So well the skills required to play at the positions are slightly more important. IMO the positional ratings tend to improve quicker than the skills( i might be wrong); so I would probably pick players with (age on their side & )skills and play em as many minutes as possible. |
|
|
| [THB] Admin |  |
|
| THB has comparing to GI only one overall rating because handball players usually have to play in offence and defence. |
|
|
| Sffc95 | |
|
| Yes, they run foward and back, because gteh field is small, because it was created during the World War 2 in Germany by a Female Teacher |
|
|
| Artoupan | |
|
Administrator wrote:
THB has comparing to GI only one overall rating because handball players usually have to play in offence and defence. |
I don't understand. One overall rating ? But when I put the same player at different positions (CB, P...), he has different ratings ! |
|
|
| Sffc95 | |
|
He plays in 2 different positions. If you ever played handball you'll confirm it.
A guy might be in the left wing, and then he goes foward to atack.
if he looses the ball he has to defend. Because in handball you can't touch the player! |
|
|
| Artoupan | |
|
| Yes I understand that, but after each match, each player has two ratings. One for his position in attack, and one for his position in defense. And if the next match you make him play on other positions, he will have other ratings. So for me, a player can have different ratings for all positions in attack and all positions in defense ! |
|
|
| PStimpel | |
|
Artoupan wrote:
Yes I understand that, but after each match, each player has two ratings. One for his position in attack, and one for his position in defense. And if the next match you make him play on other positions, he will have other ratings. So for me, a player can have different ratings for all positions in attack and all positions in defense ! |
if this is done similar to GI each player has a positional rating for each position. |
|
|
| Sffc95 | |
|
|
|
