GTL's AFL23 Player Ratings

[Flagmantle Pod]

CarltonView attachment 1649346

Williams, Acres, E. Curnow, McGovern, and Martin are way too high whilst Kennedy and Hollands too low. Blues have heaps of top end talent but limited B graders.

I’d say:
Williams - 82
Acres - 83
E. Curnow - 81
McGovern - 82
Martin - 80
Kennedy - 85
Hollands - 75

Personal opinion of course

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

 

[Bianconeri]

View attachment 1657853

I’d change

Moore: 90
Pendlebury:89
Mitchell: 88
Adams: 85
Sidebottom:85
Nick Daicos: 88
Crisp: 87
Hoskin-Elliott: 79
Quaynor: 85
Noble: 84
Lipinski: 83
McReery: 81
McStay: 80
Markov: 77
Murphy: 80

 

[jc12]

the player ratings in this game arent good, so here is a more accurate version that i came up with within a minute for the tigers
85+ rated players would be your top 1-2 level players in the comp with 90+ being the very elite level
80-84 your regular afl players but arent stars 74-79 players who are in and out of the side below that vfl player and u18s

Tom J. Lynch	90​
Dustin Martin	90​
Shai Bolton	87​
Dion Prestia	87​
Dylan Grimes	86​
Toby Nankervis	86​
Tim Taranto	86​
Jack Riewoldt	85​
Jayden Short	85​
Nick Vlastuin	85​
Liam Baker	84​
Nathan Broad	84​
Trent Cotchin	84​
Jacob Hopper	84​
Daniel Rioli	84​
Noah Balta	83​
Jack Graham	83​
Marlion Pickett	82​
Robbie Tarrant	82​
Kamdyn McIntosh	81​
Ivan Soldo	80​
Josh Gibcus	78​
Maurice Rioli jnr	78​
Jack Ross	77​
Tyler Sonsie	77​
Noah Cumberland	76​
Hugo Ralphsmith	76​
Rhyan Mansell	75​
Ben Miller	75​
Judson Clarke	74​
Thomson Dow	73​
Tylar Young	73​
Samson Ryan	72​
Jacob Bauer	70​
Bigoa Nyuon	70​
Tom Brown	69​
Seth Campbell	69​
Sam Banks	68​
Kaleb Smith	66​
Steely Green	65​
Kaelan Bradtke	64​
Mate Colina	63​

 

[jc12]

View attachment 1657853

these are way too high for some players
penduls is 87
de goey 86
maynard 86
sidebottom 85
howe 84
j daicos 83
mihocek 83
n daicos 83
crisp 84
m cox 78
t mitchell 87
t adams 85
markov 81? should be 75

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

these are way too high for some players
penduls is 87
de goey 86
maynard 86
sidebottom 85
howe 84
j daicos 83
mihocek 83
n daicos 83
crisp 84
m cox 78
t mitchell 87
t adams 85
markov 81? should be 75

If mine are too high, yours are way too low, apart from your rating for DustyPendles, De Goey and Maynard all better than Dusty.

 

[jc12]

If mine are too high, yours are way too low, apart from your rating for DustyPendles, De Goey and Maynard all better than Dusty.

like one of the posters said, 90s should be reserved for the elite top tier players of the comp. you can say current form they might be better, but im basing this off dusty being the goat and obviously injury and personal issues have stopped him the last two years. you cant go from a 95 to 85 so dramatically imo

those 3 pies players are not top A+ grade players in the comp

imo these guys are and deserve to be 90+: neale, cripps, j cameron, oliver, petracca, gawn, dusty, lynch, bont
should be an exclusive club not a free for all imo

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

like one of the posters said, 90s should be reserved for the elite top tier players of the comp. you can say current form they might be better, but im basing this off dusty being the goat and obviously injury and personal issues have stopped him the last two years. you cant go from a 95 to 85 so dramatically imo

those 3 pies players are not top A+ grade players in the comp

imo these guys are and deserve to be 90+: neale, cripps, j cameron, oliver, petracca, gawn, dusty, lynch, bont
should be an exclusive club not a free for all imo

I personally would’ve put Dusty at an 88 but Pendlebury fits the same category as Dusty and was in way better form than Dusty over the first 3 rounds (when I did the ratings). De Goey is also in way better form than Dusty. I also agree 90s should be used for the elite. But I view an A+ player as 92+

 

[jc12]

I personally would’ve put Dusty at an 88 but Pendlebury fits the same category as Dusty and was in way better form than Dusty over the first 3 rounds (when I did the ratings). De Goey is also in way better form than Dusty. I also agree 90s should be used for the elite. But I view an A+ player as 92+

90 should be for A+ due to the fact its more easier and recognizable than "92" random number
and so it can also give players room to grow in career mode.

its not good to have tons of 99s after 5 seasons
penduls is an A grader i agree but he has not reached the massive heights of martin who was considered best player in the comp.
you can maybe see it as a ronaldo type decline who was 92 or something in fifa but spent a year or 2 in the 90s, gradual decline

its not like dusty fell off the face of the earth

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

90 should be for A+ due to the fact its more easier and recognizable than "92" random number
and so it can also give players room to grow in career mode.

its not good to have tons of 99s after 5 seasons
penduls is an A grader i agree but he has not reached the massive heights of martin who was considered best player in the comp.
you can maybe see it as a ronaldo type decline who was 92 or something in fifa but spent a year or 2 in the 90s, gradual decline

its not like dusty fell off the face of the earth

I mean he kinda did… No but seriously an 88 doesn’t indicate he fell off the earth. But let’s face it, his form wouldn’t win top 5 in the Richmond B&F this year.

I’d argue Pendlebury was considered A+ at various stages of his career and is in better form than Martin.

I never said there should be high 90s players. Your reasoning for A+ Player needing to be 90 because it is more recognisable is a bit ridiculous. If anything a 90 should indicate the level ‘A’ standard. But in saying that, there should absolutely be room for growth. And 90+ there still is.

The important thing with the ratings is they indicate who is the better player overall from best to worst. The number itself is not important, as long as the number reflects where they sit among their peers and gives room for growth.

 

[jc12]

I mean he kinda did… No but seriously an 88 doesn’t indicate he fell off the earth. But let’s face it, his form wouldn’t win top 5 in the Richmond B&F this year.

I’d argue Pendlebury was considered A+ at various stages of his career and is in better form than Martin.

I never said there should be high 90s players. Your reasoning for A+ Player needing to be 90 because it is more recognisable is a bit ridiculous. If anything a 90 should indicate the level ‘A’. But in saying that, there should absolutely be room for growth. And 90+ there still is.

The important thing with the ratings is they indicate who is the better player overall from best to worst. The number itself is not important, as long as the number reflects where they sit among their peers and gives room for growth.

i agree that he wouldnt be top5 b and f at all

but at the start of 2021 he was the best player in the comp, obviously a kidney and his dad dying has halted him for 2 seasons , so i think going from like 95 to 90 is not unreasonable

no its not ridiculous, because when you market this game and you show who the best players are , ppl recognize the "90" as being the top echelon of players, they did that with their fb post this year and had papley in there. thats laughable. fifa also reveal their best players as 90+ too, thats just the way it is

if you have it as 92+ as you said there will be less room to grow.

pendulbury atm is a rung below the top players in the comp, eg oliver , bont , cameron etc but is still really good

and he has been at that level for about 4 or so seasons now, thats why.

the overall takes into account how good they are now and how good they were in recent history.

for example if we only take into account who is the best now youd have n daicos at like 90 and that would be ridiculous.

fifa with their ratings for the most part get it right and thats why i think they are a good base to base the ratings on

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

no its not ridiculous, because when you market this game and you show who the best players are , ppl recognize the "90" as being the top echelon of players,

They could just market it as 94s being the top echelon of players.

if you have it as 92+ as you said there will be less room to grow.

plenty of room to grow. 94 is the best player atm.

pendulbury atm is a rung below the top players in the comp, eg oliver , bont , cameron etc but is still really good

That’s why I have him rated lower than those top players you mention.

the overall takes into account how good they are now and how good they were in recent history.

Yes I know, I take that into consideration. As I have with Martin and Pendlebury.

Ratings overall are highly subjective. If you want to go strictly with FIFAs model, then you’d only have 1 90 rated AFL Player as the player pool is too small anyway.

The point of me doing these ratings is to rank the players from best to worst. To avoid things like Darcy Tucker and Nick Daicos being the same rating for example.

 

[jc12]

They could just market it as 94s being the top echelon of players.

plenty of room to grow. 94 is the best player atm.

That’s why I have him rated lower than those top players you mention.

Yes I know, I take that into consideration. As I have with Martin and Pendlebury.

Ratings overall are highly subjective. If you want to go strictly with FIFAs model, then you’d only have 1 90 rated AFL Player as the player pool is too small anyway.

The point of me doing these ratings is to rank the players from best to worst. To avoid things like Darcy Tucker and Nick Daicos being the same rating for example.

Well one thing I will give you credit for is that yours is better than the actual game.

But no , 90s are what is more recognizable and if you have tons of players in the 90s it will make it unrealistic as it wouldn't make the A+ elites feel as exclusive and again not much room to grow , the only room to grow is high 90s then you'd get tons of players in the 90s too, makes it feel unbalanced.

And no, it's almost clear who the too tier players are , there's like 8 of them, give them 90 , you don't judge how many 90s there are by the size of the comp lol

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

Well one thing I will give you credit for is that yours is better than the actual game.

Thank you, and so are yours. That is what I’m worried about, that the players ratings rank them from best player to worst player.

you don't judge how many 90s there are by the size of the comp

I was just giving that as an example if you want to have the system as ‘balanced’ as the FIFA ratings. For AFL you’d have 1 90s player.

But no , 90s are what is more recognizable and if you have tons of players in the 90s it will make it unrealistic as it wouldn't make the A+ elites feel as exclusive and again not much room to grow , the only room to grow is high 90s then you'd get tons of players in the 90s too, makes it feel unbalanced

Anyway this is all a matter of opinion and not right or wrong. Ratings are subjective to a certain degree. But things like Daicos being better than Tucker is objective lol

 

[jc12]

Thank you, and so are yours. That is what I’m worried about, that the players ratings rank them from best player to worst player.

I was just giving that as an example if you want to have the system as ‘balanced’ as the FIFA ratings. For AFL you’d have 1 90s player.

Anyway this is all a matter of opinion and not right or wrong. Ratings are subjective to a certain degree. But things like Daicos being better than Tucker is objective lol

fifa as base in terms the very best being 90+ A graders being 85+ etc thats what i meant

 

[Wrenny]

You 2 need to get a room

 

[LennyHayes77]

You two need to move on from the "overall" debate. Do you ever think for a moment that a players overall skill in the game is going to be very dependant on a massive amount of factors? Like midfielders are going to have lower marking stats, or hit out stats, or spoiling stats than players in other positions that decrease that overall. So you can't just give them a 90+ in all categories because you think their overall should be a certain number.
Once the game is out, look at their individual stats. That's what you really need to be debating.
Comparing Dusty and Pendles is pointless as they both play completely different styles of footy. So if one is rated higher than the other it doesn't mean they are the better player. Dusty would have it over Pendles in certain situations and vice versa. Fretting over their "overall" skill level is a pointless exercise.

 

[jc12]

You two need to move on from the "overall" debate. Do you ever think for a moment that a players overall skill in the game is going to be very dependant on a massive amount of factors? Like midfielders are going to have lower marking stats, or hit out stats, or spoiling stats than players in other positions that decrease that overall. So you can't just give them a 90+ in all categories because you think their overall should be a certain number.
Once the game is out, look at their individual stats. That's what you really need to be debating.
Comparing Dusty and Pendles is pointless as they both play completely different styles of footy. So if one is rated higher than the other it doesn't mean they are the better player. Dusty would have it over Pendles in certain situations and vice versa. Fretting over their "overall" skill level is a pointless exercise.

A Midfielders overall is determined by stats that are related to a midfielders role mate. That's why overall does matter

 

[LennyHayes77]

A Midfielders overall is determined by stats that are related to a midfielders role mate. That's why overall does matter

Overall does not matter

 

[JT_the_Man]

A simpler time, oh what I’d give for ratings debates.