Two decimal places give an opinion the appearance of scientific certainty. An 8.36 looks more definitive than an eight, even though creativity remains difficult to measure consistently.
Undav’s reported position above more famous names also challenges the usual star-driven coverage. A rating can change the conversation from who attracted the most attention to who performed best under a defined scoring system.
That is useful, but it is not neutral. A player’s influence may come through movement, pressing, leadership or tactical discipline-qualities that are harder to reduce to one number.
The report describes a wider shift in how supporters consume football:
The attraction is obvious. Ratings are easy to share, debate and aggregate. They can be used to build team rankings, drive social discussion and supply material for predictions. Their simplicity gives them reach that longer tactical analysis often lacks.
The important question is not whether numerical ratings belong in football. They already do. It is whether audiences treat them as a conversation starter or a final verdict.
’s system may broaden attention beyond the usual elite names, but its credibility will depend on transparency: how categories are weighted, how performances are judged and whether context survives the final score. The next major tournament will provide the clearest test when a familiar star receives a modest mark-or another unexpected leader emerges.