Can't believe that Rohrer is in the top 10 of Aussie batsmen.
Who the hell is he again?
On a more serious note, it appears as if the game bases ratings and the like on averages and automatically assigns it as such, with the exception of a select few whose ratings were specifically changed by the researchers e.g. Ian Trott, which are quite few and far between.
This is exactly why there are so many strangely "good" players popping up for teams like the U.A.E. or Scotland. A U.A.E. player is actually listed as one of the top 10 batsmen in the game (better than Tendulkar, even), while Scotland regularly make the Friends Provident knockout stages with their unheralded gaggle of stars, a couple of them reaching up to 1300-1500 in the batting department.
Many of South Africa, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka's players also face the same conundrum, with several poorer players with high averages (many of these based on not outs or one-off games against poor opposition like university or B-teams) getting higher ratings than actual national team regulars, who should be miles and miles better in comparison.
Pretty much every other management game, whether you talk about
Out of the Park Baseball or
WBM or
Football Manager, bases its ratings on actual research and media reports undertaken by the staff, rather than a "formula" computerized simply on the basis of numbers on a stats board. Doesn't any quality checking go with the game whatsoever?
All of this pretty much takes all of the realism out of the game, especially when you don't even get a basic editor to go with the game. When you get to the World Cups, it becomes a bit of a joke really when you see teams like Bangladesh getting to the finals or players like Philander or Clare leading international wickets & bowling charts. Time for a re-write of the engine, I think.