• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Player ratings similar to FIFA


Academy Player
Feb 3, 2007
Seeing as Rugby is such a rounded game no one person is excellent at every facet of the game (excluding john eales). In football games like fifa the goalies are often the highest rated players in the game as their job description is less than that of the other players.

Whereas in madden you often get players with 99 overall. This is because they only have several things to do i.e. cornerbacks cover the receiver and if they are fast and good defenders they get a good rating.This means that they are more likely to receive a high rating as they have a relatively small number of skills required compared to a 10 in rugby for instance.

However i don't think that the rugby games should adopt the style used by basketball, nfl and previous rugby ***les.
The ratings should reflect their real life counterparts and extreme ratings should be reserved for extreme players.
This would also reduce the god effect of players like wilko, BOD, carter, umaga from past games.

For instance in Rugby 06 Carter was a 98 he was a star player and a god on the game. Under the new ratings system Carter would be rated at about 91-92. He would be near the complete player in the game but due to the many skills required for 10 he is nowhere near a 99.

I would also opt out of the stars as they distract people ingame and to be honest they look a bit tacky and unrealistic.

Some Examples of my Ratings:

Carter: 92
McCaw: 90
Giteau: 80
Elsom: 82
Burger: 86
Morne Steyn; 84
Jauzion: 83
Wilkinson: 76
Chris Ashton: 75
BOD: 82
Spies: 83
Shane Williams: 79
Harinodoquy: 85
Paterson: 74
Roberts: 81
Genia: 84

From this list you can see that the high class players are in and around the 80's not the 90's. The 90's should be a class reserved for the games current greats. Matfield at 93 is my highest rated player as he is probably the most complete player for any position. The SH players are stronger than the NH players because that is how the game currently is with the south being the major superpowers.

Before you say i am biased i am not i am from England and their ratings would reflect how good they are in actuality, its just that Sa and NZ are the best teams in the world as sad as it is.
Totally agree with the system, i think Madden's whole 99 overall system is a "tad" unrealistic along with rugby 06/08. Obviously the overall's will be up for debate, and will differ from this years "stats". Agree with the majority of the above overall's, everyone can guess which ones i disagree with, not gonna bother mentioning because everyone will already start debating anyways.
Not sure if its already been mentioned but another idea is monthly squad/rating updates. The reason i say monthly is because i presume HB doesn't have the number of staff that EA has working on FIFA, so i think monthly is reasonable; that is if the idea would come into place. I think it would be a cool idea to keep competition fresh :D :D :D
I hope that being a 70 or 60 (overall) doesn't make the players unplayable and prone to mistakes. Hopefully the "position specific" stats count more than the overall.
so if for example i take the above example of Shane Williams 79 -

+ high acceleration,agility, Speed and "attacking special move" (just made a hypothetical stat for example purpose) ratings
+ gamebreaker/ matchwinner
+ Strength mid/low
- low head on tackle (seems to be quite solid when side on, actually quite solid overall this season)

anyways you get the picture his overall would be lower due to lower stats such as scrummaging and goal kicking etc but due to his position, his overall rating would not effect him so much.
That would make unique players like Ma'a Nonu, have very low ratings. He is pretty fast, solid tackler, great tackle breaker but he can't kick at all, his passing is below average and his handling can be suspect. Would that mean he'd only be rated like 65? Because I don't think that's an accurate rating.
some of my southern hemisphere ratings ...

- du Preez 95
- Carter 95
- M.Steyn 94
- Jane 94
- McCaw 90
- Habana 92
- Fourie 93
- Cooper 90
- Elsom 92
- Sivivatu 90
- O'Connor 87
Unlike a soccer player who (for 10/11 players) only has one notable skill and can be rated based on that number, a rugby player is a specialist at what he does. Saying "McCaw and Du Prez both deserve a rating of 92" shares about as much information as your typical group of 18 year old females preparing for an evening of cheep vodka and nightclub toilet sex.

You have to compare apples with apples, so while a McCaw should only be compared to other backrow players, Ashton should only be compared to other fullbacks/wingers. etc.

Then to bump it further along, instead of just estimated percentages that players ratings should be based on workable figures;

eg (based on wings & fullbacks):
Speed will be how quckly that player can sprint 60m (so Habana, Ashton, Rockocoko etc will have figures around the 10/11 second mark, bigger & slower Banahans etc will be closer to 15)
Defence should be based on a 1/10 (ranging from 1=crap--->10=amazing) system, as would many other features of the player.

Then there are position specific components of the players; a winger will never prop, while a hooker will never take a high ball, sidestep at full sprint and dash 70m to score. So these should be taken into consideration also.

Once you apply all these elements into the game then using the 1/100 system would mean nobody should ever have a rating about 75-80 and it would be pretty nominal with the odd exceptions, most players between 50-75 and maybe Dan Carter alone at 88, just because he actually is good enough to play literally anywhere amongst the backs for any team in the world.

Or maybe if people prefer basic systems which offer more then just number-crunching, a "Premiership Stars" or similar system should be introduced.
i disagree with the first post. that means to me that dan carter is a good first five, but not a good lock or prop, so he shouldn't have a high rating. he should have a good overall at first five, but when you shift him to lock he will have a bad overall. however this doesnt mean he will drop the ball every single time you touch it :lol:
If Dan Carter played Lock, he'd never touch the ball before getting his neck snapped.
FIFA 10 has the perfect system whereby the ratings change depending on position. I think that the ratings system in this game is quite flawed, but is more to do with gameplay. I would like to see line-breaks and passing have a greater impact in the back-line rather than simply speed. Therefore, even though Nonu may have a 'rating' of 70ish he would still be a great player, and great purchase in a manager mode (please please please!), because of certain stats. Basically I think comparative advantage should play a greater role, rather than simply an all-round average.
a hooker will never take a high ball, sidestep at full sprint and dash 70m to score.
*awaits rabid Saracens fans* :p

I'm not too fussed about numbers, but I might jot some down if i can follow some players this season, on the off-chance we're asked to help.
*awaits rabid Saracens fans* :p

You say that as a joke, but interestingly Brits is a great case point. While it is quite remarkable what he can do in the lose, his almost-complete inability to do the basics hold him back by a considerable margin. However to make him such a force as a running player, he'd have to be given a high rating so his scrummaging and line-out would also have to be considered good, thus ruining the effect and making him the best player in the game.
Saying "McCaw and Du Prez both deserve a rating of 92" shares about as much information as your typical group of 18 year old females preparing for an evening of cheep vodka and nightclub toilet sex.

So Mite, how did your Saturday night pan out?
I wasn't suggesting that DC or Nonu would be rated low because they couldn't scrummage, it would be better if they skills involved for backline play and forward play were separated although they would overlap.

For Props would have a good rating due to Scrummaging, strength, tackling, with ratings such as speed handling and passing bumping up there final ratings although they are not critical.

A Flanker would need a more alrounded set of tackling, rucking, lineouts, handling, strength with their ratings bumped up by skills like passing, tackle breaking and speed

A ten would need tactical kicking, passing, goal kicking, tackling, handling, so forth bumped up by speed tackle breaking and so forth

This would mean that athletes could only reach a certain rating if there skills werent up to it. The better the core skills the better the player and a few bonus points added on by the bumper categories.

Anyway that would be how i would do it,

and i would probably give nonu a 79-81 rating
As I was watching this video, I thought, "that isn't how stats worked before? But it seems so obvious." Which leads me to ask, what effect will stats have here?
As I was watching this video, I thought, "that isn't how stats worked before? But it seems so obvious." Which leads me to ask, what effect will stats have here?
Not seen that video before,
Looks good, will make the game feel very different/a tad annoying when playing at first :p
Fully agree with that... every player should be able to play in any position without constantly dropping the ball
eg. just cause you put Dan Carter at Lock he wouldn't all of a sudden lose all ball handling skills! (however he'd probably break his back in the first scrum)
Im sorry but if carter is 92, Wilkinson is not 76! I would have Carter about 94 and Wilkinson about 90. He hasnt started for England in the last 3 games, but this was because Flutey and Care played so poorly around him in the 6N. He is still one of the worlds best 10s, if you watch him play his club rugby you will know that.
I've been giving this alot of thought and i think that player 'ratings' should change depending on what position you have them playing.

For a player to have a high rating (85+) in the no. 10 jersey they would need to have high speed, ball handling, passing and kicking ratings, a player with these stats would probably receive a high rating playing at no. 12, 15 and even 9. For a player to have a high rating in the no. 4 or 5 jersey they would need to be tall, have high scrummaging, strength and ball winning stats, a player with these stats could probably have a good rating playing at no. 6, 7 and 8.
Players should have preferred positions (only two or three) and when they're playing there they should get a ratings boost but when they're playing out of position their rating would rely completely on their stats so they would end up not being as good a player.
eg. A player like Cory Jane has a great skill set. skill that would probably make him a pretty good no. 10 I reckon he would have a rating of around 83 on the wing and 85 at fullback (his preferred positions) but if he played at first-five he would drop down to somewhere around 75.

I think this would be a very effective way of making sure that players had accurate ratings. And its always frustrated me when someone gets injured and you don't have someone of that exact position on the bench. an that player always ends up dropping the ball.

Thanks for reading, let me know what you think, Cheers