Minimum Match Ratings

[Rbtrager]

One thing that does not make much sense to me is the minimum match rating requirement for different divisions.

I understand the premise, and I agree with the underlying objective. There should be some minimum standard linked to division level to discourage managers from fielding totally uncompetitive teams that are clearly below the level of that division.

The problem, though, is that match rating is not something managers can actually see or control before the game. We only see it afterwards. That means it is not really a managerial decision or strategy setting — it is guesswork.

It also creates the situation where, before a match has even started, the result can already be known based on whether sponsorship was received, which is not ideal.

If the aim is to require a minimum standard while still linking it to something managers can control, it may make more sense to base that requirement on factors such as age/wage or player rating or a combination. Any of those would still help prevent minimalist teams being fielded purely to gain experience, but they would do so in a way that is transparent and firmly within the manager’s control, rather than depending on guesswork around a post-match rating.

[GA-James018]

Match ratings are within managers' control as well. Yes, you can't see them before the match starts, but just by viewing your team's ratings in prior matches you can get a sense of where your match rating should be. If a team rests so many players that the manager is unsure whether they'll reach the minimum match rating, I'd suggest they're very likely to fit the definition of "fielding totally uncompetitive teams that are clearly below the level of that division" and should consider themselves lucky if they do reach the minimum.

Other measures like wages or player ratings are less reliable in terms of measuring a team's competitiveness: players could have high wages due to being recently bought, or higher ratings due to skills they don't need. They also would require you as the manager to manually add up the wages/ratings of your team, which is arguably a lot more effort than just checking your recent match ratings.

[Rbtrager]

Thanks James — I understand the intent of the rule, and I agree with the objective of preventing clearly uncompetitive teams being fielded.

My concern is really about the distinction between control and estimation.

Looking at prior match ratings may help a manager make an educated guess, but that is not the same as the rule being based on something that is actually visible and controllable before the match is played.

Because match rating is only known after the game, compliance with the rule ultimately depends on a post-match output rather than a pre-match input. That means managers are not truly controlling compliance — they are estimating the likelihood of compliance.

To me, that is a bit like setting a speed limit but only telling drivers after the journey whether they were within it. Even if they had a rough idea based on previous trips, that would still not make it a rule they could properly know and comply with in advance.

That is materially different from using age, wage, player rating, or another pre-match metric. Those measures may not be perfect proxies for competitiveness, but they are at least transparent and fully knowable before team submission.

Precision is not the only issue here. Transparency, predictability, and the ability for managers to know whether they are compliant before the match starts matter as well. An imperfect pre-match rule that managers can actually calculate is preferable to a more precise post-match metric that can only be known afterwards.

I completely support having a minimum standard linked to division level — I just think it should be based on something managers can clearly assess and control before the match starts.

[GA-James018]

My counter to the driving argument is that, even if you didn't have a speedometer, if you are knowingly driving along a road a lot faster than you usually do, you should not be surprised if you get picked up for speeding.

I get what you mean about estimation, and I'd agree with you if there was a lot of variance in match ratings with similar teams. But you can pretty reliably guess around where your match rating is, I'd say within a range of around 10k simply by looking at the last game where you selected an XI similar to the current one. More experienced managers will probably be able to guess even more precisely than that.

Do you know exactly what your match rating would be? No, but you know enough information to know if you're safely over the threshold in 99% of cases. In the other 1% where you're not sure, like I said, that very likely means you are taking the risk of resting too many players, and should count yourself lucky if you do make it.

[Rbtrager]

That is really the point though — “you should count yourself lucky if you make it” is not a sound basis for a defined rule.

If the rule is meant to set a minimum standard, managers should be able to know before the match whether they are complying with it. A system that depends on making a rough estimate from previous games is not true control; it is approximation.

And that matters because the game quite properly encourages managers to rotate, give younger players experience, and manage fatigue — particularly in dead rubbers, against bots, or when teams are exhausted. Those are legitimate strategic choices. A rule should be able to distinguish between deliberately fielding a clearly non-competitive side and making reasonable squad-management decisions. At the moment, a post-match rating does not do that in a transparent way.

Saying that managers can usually estimate within a broad range is really just defending the status quo, not answering the underlying point. The issue is not whether experienced managers can often guess correctly. The issue is whether compliance should depend on guesswork at all when there are alternative pre-match measures that are visible, knowable, and within managerial control.

A minimum standard is fine. But if it is going to operate as an actual rule, it should be based on something managers can assess before the match begins, not something they only discover afterwards.

A rule is supposed to define the line, not ask managers to hope afterwards that they happened to land on the right side of it.

[boscorp]

I don't really think it has been an issue with new managers, the minimums are fairly generous in comparison to what a new side starts with. It doesn't take long to get a basic idea of what strength side is needed and within the first season most managers get an understanding of how to control their ratings.

[Rbtrager]

Your evidence of that is?

I would suggest most new managers would not even know a minimum match rating exists…

But again you also miss the point.

It is not about being capable of making good guesses.

It is whether guesswork to abide by a rule is the optimal approach.

Surely preserving the intent, but allowing managers to clearly abide by the rule or not is the preferred approach.

The question then is, is there a known variable, or mixture of them, that would provide the same baseline?

[boscorp]

Your evidence of that is?

I would suggest most new managers would not even know a minimum match rating exists…

But again you also miss the point.

It is not about being capable of making good guesses.

It is whether guesswork to abide by a rule is the optimal approach.

Surely preserving the intent, but allowing managers to clearly abide by the rule or not is the preferred approach.

The question then is, is there a known variable, or mixture of them, that would provide the same baseline?

My "evidence" is only from the conversations I've been involved in with other new managers in game and on discord. I'm sure there is a mixture of variables that can produce the same baseline. Ratings are a tool to gauge the strength of your side. Play friendly matches, compare ratings to various line ups and you will soon be able to assess the input from individual players well enough.

[GM-crowfan65]

Also they dont have to worry about it for 100 days
We are looking into other options as we speak

[Rbtrager]

Also they dont have to worry about it for 100 days
We are looking into other options as we speak

Great -Thanks! Good to see it is being looked at - all I can ask.

Someone sent me a good analogy - It is like enforcing an over-rate penalty in cricket without letting players see the clock. You might expect them to have a general sense of time, but you cannot fairly punish them for breaching a limit they have no reliable way to track in real time. A standard that carries penalties should be based on something visible, transparent and within the manager’s control — not guesswork.

[GA-James018]

You see your match ratings for every game, so in your over rate analogy it's like seeing your over rate at the end of every over, but just not knowing what it is for the current over. You may not know in real time but you have a very good idea of what it is if you've been paying any attention at all in previous overs.

Of course, that analogy breaks down if you're playing a very different XI to previously, but that's the kind of strategy the match rating minimums are supposed to discourage anyway.

As I say in my signature, that my opinion as a player. To put my admin hat on, though, we do appreciate the feedback and, like Crowie said, are looking into what we could do to address this and remove as much ambiguity as possible.