Goal.com have no idea how to rate a game

With Real Madrid winning 4-1 against Atleti only in extra time, you would imagine any rater would take that into account when rating the players. Instead, Goal.com simply opts to rate every Atleti player lower than they should just because they lost.

Anyway, beyond that standard Goal.com performance, they also have a number of truly ridiculous ratings:

Ramos: Man of the Match.
Di Maria: Only four stars, and not MOTM.
Marcelo: Lower rating than Ramos, despite being one of the major heroes of the night.

Now, here is where it gets truly ridiculous:

Godin: 3.5 Stars, because he "clipped" Ronaldo. In fact, anyone watching the game would know that it was actually Gabi that did so and that Godin played a perfect match.

Felipe Luis: 3.5 Stars
"For most of the game, his defensive contributions were stellar, but in extra-time, he did not have the energy to both support the attack and defend."

Luis was subbed before Extra Time

LOL.com always have ridiculous ratings. BuLi players are always rated lower than La Liga or BPL  players, no matter what they do on the pitch (eg Reus hattrick? 4 stars. Messi stands on the pitch - 5 stars).

I was particularly incensed when the description of Yann Sommer for the Salzburg match where he kept a clean sheet and made numerous big saves said "World class performance" and he only got 4 stars, too. What else does a keeper have to do to get 5 stars? And is "world class" only 5 stars when it comes from the reputation of Messi, no matter what he does, or so?

My impression is they throw some dice when they rate a match and for the winning team they add some number while for the losing team they subtract it.

we live in the planet full of unwise people

that's nothing we can do

Well, I guess Lord Spencers (and my) point is: "If you rate a match, you should at least have seen it."

rwo power wrote:Well, I guess Lord Spencers (and my) point is: "If you rate a match, you should at least have seen it."

even peoples that seen it had so many differences of interpretation among them

some seen positive things as negative

some seen negative things as positive

I can't say I have looked at the ratings at goal.com since about 2008. Have always been trash.

From what I remember (and it doesn't look like anything has changed) big players like Ronaldo would get MOTM 9/10 ratings for being a ghost and getting a lucky goal. Stature had a lot to do with ratings for Goal.

Must be the interns.