Young player with low stats doing brillianty

[WojciechZed]

So I have a 21-year old player who I brought into the first team out of necessity, because he played in a position where both of the other players who can play there, were injured, and I wanted somebody there, whose natural position it is. His attributes are not great and he has a 1 star rating, with the potential to get a 1.5 star, yet he played very well, and scored. So even when the other got back from injury, I played him a few more times, as I felt he earned it, and once again, he did very well, even scored some great goals from distance. His attribute ratings are still generally quite low though, as is his star rating. I did get feedback on his training, that he has progressed well, with first team football being among the factors to help this, but I was wondering when his stats will begin to rise, or his star rating? Or should I not expect this any time soon? He isn't a wonderkid or anything, and as I said, his attributes are below average at best, but this hasn't show on the pitch, where he has been great. Perhaps it still takes a good few months for his attributes and stars to rise based on his on pitch performance?

[IbrahimAliMaher]

No guarantee that stats will increase even with first team football. I chucked a few kids into my first team in league two as the more experienced players in those positions weren't doing the business. Even though they pretty well smashed it up, stats wise they never really developed much. Supposedly I had one of the best coaching teams in the division, however my training facilities are sub standard so maybe if you have all the factors needed plus good player personalities you might get some results.

[Geordieboy52]

Attributes mean nothing - performances are what counts.  I have had players with amazing stats who never seem to perform.  If a player fits your system and plays well - he's worth keeping.

[sporadicsmiles]

1 hour ago, Geordieboy52 said:

Attributes mean nothing - performances are what counts.

Well that is not true, because attributes determine how well he plays. Having a good distribution of attributes to play a specific role in your side trumps reputation, CA, PA and everything else though (which is what I think you meant).

[WojciechZed]

Attributes should mean something, otherwise they are pointless. If a player has high attributes and never seems to perform, then unless they are unhappy and simply not putting the effort in, I would expect the attributes to drop over time, just as I would expect them to rise if a player with low ones keeps doing well.

[sporadicsmiles]

19 hours ago, WojciechZed said:

If a player has high attributes and never seems to perform,

It is highly dependent on how you play that player, though. A player who is excellent in the air but slower than a 50 year old Emile Heskey is never going to perform well in a team that relies on lightning quick counter attacks. However he may absolutely kill it when asked to perform as a target man, or as a striker in a tactic designed to let him stay up front and put the ball on his head. The same goes for pretty much any player. This is why star rating can be misleading. It is always best to play a player who fits your style over one who does not, despite how your coaches rate them globally.

[Zardoz]

I have a forward in my team who is the last survivor of the championship team what achieved promotion to the PL five years ago. Every year I consider selling him because his stats are pretty average and sometimes he is rather useless, loosing balls, bad passes etc. However, he makes the critical goals and the fans love him.

At the moment I am fighting for European League Qualification and had a bad mini serieal of two defeats. it was critical to win the next match, especially because after that there will be the League Cup semifinal re-match.

The match was a typical match of him. A 9,5 and a hat-trick ....  . This makes the decision not easier.

I assume that the mental attributes are the key. I had also several players which were from a pure numbers-view not worth to line-up. But they were very reliable and delivered always. The assistant wanted always to get rid of them. Mostly they were defenders or defenisive midfileders of the terrier-type. In Germany we have a special word for this type of player: "Kampfschwein" (i. e. battle-hog, which is not insulting but honorable).

 

 

[herne79]

May or may not be relevant here, but "hidden" attributes aren't mentioned and are every bit as important (if not more so) than visible attributes.

I'll always take a player with great consistency who can handle the pressure well with "low" visible attributes ahead of a great looking player who'll only turn up to play once in a blue moon.

[Geordieboy52]

On 03/10/2019 at 13:52, sporadicsmiles said:

Well that is not true, because attributes determine how well he plays. Having a good distribution of attributes to play a specific role in your side trumps reputation, CA, PA and everything else though (which is what I think you meant).

No I actually meant that I've had players, like the OP, who really shouldn't be effective but are excellent.  As @herne79 says, hidden attributes are just as important as the ability to run, dribble, pass etc and I would much rather have a player who performed consistently that someone who had 'high' attributes and didn't.

[Johnny Ace]

I had something like this on FM07 I think it was during a Chelsea save. I'd signed (or inherited,  I can't remember) Daniel Bierofka an out & out left winger. His attributes & coach rating was average but all of his higher stats were in the right areas & each week the bloke would just perform. Assists, killer crosses, dynamic runs & goals, he was fantastic, week after week, he just worked within our team

I don't know if was randomised but I always figured his consistency was really high  

I came up against his recently & he was managing a BL2 team, I bowed down to him 

[ajt]

 One of my favourite players this year was a left IF Uruguayan regen who wasn't incredible attributes wise  but still banged in the goals in Serie A & the champions league. Not even sure he was a consistent/big game player. Best of all one of my scouts found him playing at some obscure SA club, he only cost about £10mil despite having continental rep.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

I kind of want to see a picture of the attributes so I can judge for myself.

 

[FMExperiment]

It's just variance. On the whole, the better the attributes the better the performances. If you're sentimental you can keep playing him, but you're better off putting the better player back in. 

Also as someone else said, he could have great hidden mentals.

[WojciechZed]

On 04/10/2019 at 10:55, herne79 said:

May or may not be relevant here, but "hidden" attributes aren't mentioned and are every bit as important (if not more so) than visible attributes.

I'll always take a player with great consistency who can handle the pressure well with "low" visible attributes ahead of a great looking player who'll only turn up to play once in a blue moon.

Yeah I am not convinced by this hidden attributes explanation though. I mean, sure, there might be some hidden attributes that can impact a player, but for example, this player's long shots rating, much like the majority of his ratings, is low, yet he's scoring beauties for me from outside the area, and not just once, but a number of times now. So surely at the very least this should cause his long shots rating to rise? Surely the attributes are meant to help you in the decisions you make. If somebody has a very low attribute for long shots, then you won't encourage them to take long shots, but if the attribute seems to make little difference, what's the point of having the attributes? You might as well just watch the player and judge what they are good at and what they aren't good at, yourself.

[herne79]

26 minutes ago, WojciechZed said:

Yeah I am not convinced by this hidden attributes explanation though. I mean, sure, there might be some hidden attributes that can impact a player, but for example, this player's long shots rating, much like the majority of his ratings, is low, yet he's scoring beauties for me from outside the area, and not just once, but a number of times now. So surely at the very least this should cause his long shots rating to rise? Surely the attributes are meant to help you in the decisions you make. If somebody has a very low attribute for long shots, then you won't encourage them to take long shots, but if the attribute seems to make little difference, what's the point of having the attributes? You might as well just watch the player and judge what they are good at and what they aren't good at, yourself.

Always remember as well that attributes are not on a scale of 1 = can't run, 20 = Usain Bolt.  They are on a scale of professional footballers, so even players with very low attributes will still be better than the likes of me.

[WojciechZed]

Well of course, but when you have a guy with a long shot attribute of 4, scoring long range beauties, while others with 2 digit numbers don't, it makes you wonder how much sense the attributes make.

[BMNJohn]

1 minute ago, herne79 said:

Always remember as well that attributes are not on a scale of 1 = can't run, 20 = Usain Bolt.  They are on a scale of professional footballers, so even players with very low attributes will still be better than the likes of me.

I've never seen a discussion on how it scales either. Is it linear, exponential (16 is way better than 14, but 2 and 4 are rather similar), logarithmic (16 isn't much if *any* better than 14, but 4 is a lot better than 2)... Especially since the attribute and PA/CA scale isn't that big if you're the kind of person who loves lower league management: a player in English D12 may not be worse than a player two divisions above. I also read that when playing that much lower in the divisions, an extra point in Pace or Determination can make a world of difference, which also questions how much faster a player with 9 (or 19) Pace is relative to a player with 7 (or 17) Pace.

Considering the rather cryptic answers read left and right, I'd assume the scale is rather logarithmic, but probably a bit smoother, but I don't actually know.

[WojciechZed]

I generally am confused with how attributes work sometimes. They certainly don't seem to correspond with star ratings.

[steam just is]

This has always been my point about attributes. They’re arbitrary and have v little real world value as a true players attributes vary wildly during a season.

My theory is that attributes should reflect your training performance in the week. They will be more variable but averages throughout the season will distinguish the best finishers eg Kane from the weakest eg Sissoko . They might suddenly have a 20 in a particular attribute for 1 week but you’ll need to be aware of all their perofrmances. The attributes will reflect the week and last 12 months average. It will make training much more interesting the the attributes much more realistic.

and, as I’ve said before, it will give a great indication of future potential if eg a 17 year old has a few weeks gets getting high attributes in one area but has a low average it suggests that area should be a focus for development 

[HUNT3R]

6 hours ago, steam just is said:

This has always been my point about attributes. They’re arbitrary and have v little real world value as a true players attributes vary wildly during a season.

This sounds like what Consistency is.

[FMExperiment]

17 hours ago, WojciechZed said:

I generally am confused with how attributes work sometimes. They certainly don't seem to correspond with star ratings.

What star ratings? The star ratings on your "Team depth" screen are staff opinions of CA/PA. 

Star ratings on your tactics screen are how well suited a player is for a role depending on how his attributes correspond with the selected role.

17 hours ago, WojciechZed said:

Well of course, but when you have a guy with a long shot attribute of 4, scoring long range beauties, while others with 2 digit numbers don't, it makes you wonder how much sense the attributes make.

It can be something to do with "scaling" like someone else said, so perhaps 20 long shots isn't twice as good as 10 long shots. Who knows. Also things like converting a long shot usually includes other attributes like technique/first touch. Then you add in hidden mentals that contribute to a player overall performance, the opposition you're playing against, a healthy dose of variance which has to exist... well of course FM isn't as linear as "This guy has 18 long shots so he will 100% score more long shots than the guy with 4". 

What you can say is that, all things being equal, the player with the better relevant stats will be more likely to score long shots. 

[Svenc]

If you get a player feeding / popping up in space, he'll score some. The prime reason why some Players get fairly average guys to score Pretty consistently every release, and vice versa the AI struggles with Messi et all.  

The Chance / regular amount of such matters far more than the Player who has them. (Which is actually some true in Football as well). There are Player Attributes that help here -- off the ball movement, pace, dribbling, anticipation. But in General, if a guy is set up in a way that he has attempts regularly, he'll score.

Needless to say I don't like how highly rated Goals are in themselves. A Player may be just doing his Job, and this fairly averagely or even below par, even he if he was pretty regularly scoring. His side may be just set up in such a way that he would be regularly fed with Quality balls. Goals are the only Things that eventually Count on the score sheet; however Goal scoring as such is just as much of a "Job" as Winning the ball back is.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Svenc

[WojciechZed]

23 hours ago, FMExperiment said:

What star ratings? The star ratings on your "Team depth" screen are staff opinions of CA/PA. 

Star ratings on your tactics screen are how well suited a player is for a role depending on how his attributes correspond with the selected role.

Players have a star rating out of 5 for how good they are and how good they could potentially be.

[Carambau]

5 hours ago, WojciechZed said:

Players have a star rating out of 5 for how good they are and how good they could potentially be.

In comparison to the players of your own team, rated by your staff (whoever is in charge for that). You seem to somehow repeatedly misunderstand the basics of the game.

Edited October 10, 2019 by Carambau

[WojciechZed]

And you seem like a person with ANGER ISSUES Mr Caps Lock

[Saintmat]

On 08/10/2019 at 17:14, BMNJohn said:

I've never seen a discussion on how it scales either. Is it linear, exponential (16 is way better than 14, but 2 and 4 are rather similar), logarithmic (16 isn't much if *any* better than 14, but 4 is a lot better than 2)... Especially since the attribute and PA/CA scale isn't that big if you're the kind of person who loves lower league management: a player in English D12 may not be worse than a player two divisions above. I also read that when playing that much lower in the divisions, an extra point in Pace or Determination can make a world of difference, which also questions how much faster a player with 9 (or 19) Pace is relative to a player with 7 (or 17) Pace.

Considering the rather cryptic answers read left and right, I'd assume the scale is rather logarithmic, but probably a bit smoother, but I don't actually know.

 

On 08/10/2019 at 22:57, steam just is said:

This has always been my point about attributes. They’re arbitrary and have v little real world value as a true players attributes vary wildly during a season.

My theory is that attributes should reflect your training performance in the week. They will be more variable but averages throughout the season will distinguish the best finishers eg Kane from the weakest eg Sissoko . They might suddenly have a 20 in a particular attribute for 1 week but you’ll need to be aware of all their perofrmances. The attributes will reflect the week and last 12 months average. It will make training much more interesting the the attributes much more realistic.

and, as I’ve said before, it will give a great indication of future potential if eg a 17 year old has a few weeks gets getting high attributes in one area but has a low average it suggests that area should be a focus for development 

Interesting discussion here and I think the two quoted replies hit upon some particularly interesting debates on what the attributes actually reflect.

Another thing I would be really interested to know is how SI maintain consistency in attribute interpretation across the many scouts that maintain their database (in my line of work we would probably call it inter-rater reliability!). I suspect this may have played a role in the "data errors" that were Mark Kerr and TZM.

On 02/10/2019 at 16:54, WojciechZed said:

So I have a 21-year old player who I brought into the first team out of necessity, because he played in a position where both of the other players who can play there, were injured, and I wanted somebody there, whose natural position it is. His attributes are not great and he has a 1 star rating, with the potential to get a 1.5 star, yet he played very well, and scored. So even when the other got back from injury, I played him a few more times, as I felt he earned it, and once again, he did very well, even scored some great goals from distance. His attribute ratings are still generally quite low though, as is his star rating. I did get feedback on his training, that he has progressed well, with first team football being among the factors to help this, but I was wondering when his stats will begin to rise, or his star rating? Or should I not expect this any time soon? He isn't a wonderkid or anything, and as I said, his attributes are below average at best, but this hasn't show on the pitch, where he has been great. Perhaps it still takes a good few months for his attributes and stars to rise based on his on pitch performance?

To address the OP's query, I think the key thing to remember is that attributes are just one source of information, that feeds into match performance via a series of complicated processes that also have to take into account factors such as fitness, confidence, personality, tactical situations, tactical familiarity etc. Fully understanding this dynamic would be fascinating, but also probably would take a lot of the fun out of the game as it may become obvious where the game can be exploited (hence why such things are kept as closely guarded secrets). That blurring of the lines between data and perception is the heart of what makes FM such a captivating game. Finding that a young player who you previously didn't think much of, is actually someone of value to your team, is a great joy. Anticipating how that player will develop, and that fear that they may 'regress' to the player they appear to be on paper, is part of the challenge.

Embrace it  

If you are interested in crowd sourcing some advice on how best to develop said player, then perhaps show us a screenshot of their attributes and form book?

[FMExperiment]

4 hours ago, WojciechZed said:

Players have a star rating out of 5 for how good they are and how good they could potentially be.

Ah yeah those ones. It's quite confusing sometimes cause the star system is used in different ways and can mean different things. But yeah this star system is just an assessment of the CA/PA of a player relative to your team and the staffs judging CA/PA attributes.

Higher star rating doesn't always mean better but usually the higher the star rating the higher the players CA, thus higher the attributes. However the distribution of attributes matters, because you might not know this but certain attributes are weighted against CA in different ways. For example, for a striker, 1 pace = 1 CA point. So 20 pace uses 20 CA points, however mentals like Determination/Leadership/Flair don't increase CA at all, and 1 point of Work Rate/Decisions/Concentration might only be worth 0.5 or less CA points. and hidden mentals do not effect CA at all! So a player with 20 consistency can have the same CA as a player with 1. So you see there is a lot of room for a player to have much stronger attributes in certain areas even if he overall has less CA.

Anyways my point is, star ratings are not as reliable as assessing attributes yourself. However, if a player with overall lower attributes is performing better then this is most likely just variance, stick the better player back in, he will perform better in the long run (unless of course, he has terrible hidden mentals).

Also to address what you said about "Taking a few months for attributes and stars to rise based on performance", unfortunately FM doesn't work this way. Attributes dictate performance, not the other way round. Attributes will rise due to training/first team experience, although morale effects training and performances effect morale so maybe indirectly playing well can effect attributes but... not really. If a player is under 20 years old you might see 20 CA point increase a season if he is a playing regular football (30 CA points would be considered amazing), after 20/21 you'll be fortunate to see +10CA a season unless the gulf between his current CA/PA is very large. Typically speaking, players over 21 won't improve that much unless they have a big gap between CA and PA. If your player only has a 1.5 star PA, then I don't think there's any chance he will ever be a good player. He is just overperforming due to variance most likely.

Edited October 10, 2019 by FMExperiment

[WojciechZed]

Some interesting feedback from the last two poster, thanks.

FMExperiment, just to pick up on something you wrote.

37 minutes ago, FMExperiment said:

Typically speaking, players over 21 won't improve that much unless they have a big gap between CA and PA. 

I have had quite a few players in their low to mid 20s, with a PA at least one star higher than their CA. Do you think this just happened to be those players I had in my team, and it isn't normally that common?

1 hour ago, Saintmat said:

If you are interested in crowd sourcing some advice on how best to develop said player, then perhaps show us a screenshot of their attributes and form book?

Sure might do that as I have just completed a season.

[FMExperiment]

8 hours ago, WojciechZed said:

Some interesting feedback from the last two poster, thanks.

FMExperiment, just to pick up on something you wrote.

I have had quite a few players in their low to mid 20s, with a PA at least one star higher than their CA. Do you think this just happened to be those players I had in my team, and it isn't normally that common?

Sure might do that as I have just completed a season.

I think it's very common to see because to get a player to fulfill his PA you need to start playing him from a young age. I'd wager having a player max out his CA to match his PA is actually quite rare.

Here's the problem, when a player hits 21/22 he just doesn't improve much at all, maybe 5-10CA a season, and that gets less and less until you hit about 24/25 and then you just won't ever see improvements.

So what does the mean when you buy players? Well if he is over 21 forget his potential ability, you're not likely to ever see much increase. Case in point here, I ran 3 seasons with Paul Pogba.

First run - Pogba is 25, has 174CA and 185PA, these are his default stats. At the end of the season his CA was still 174.

Second run - I change his age to 20, his CA at the end of the season was 184CA!

Third run - I keep his age at 25, but change his PA to 200, he finishes the season with 182CA.

So you see, the older a player is the less he improves. If the gap is big enough between his CA and PA he can still keep improving sure, but in the end if he isn't close to maxing his CA by like 21/22 he will typically always fall 10-15 points short of his PA.

So you either buy players in two ways, you buy them over the age of 21 for their current ability alone with the intention of being content with a slight increase in attributes, or you buy them at 16/17 with lots of potential and the idea of maxing out their CA. The older you buy a player, the closer you want him to his CA. I'll buy 19 year olds sure, but if there's still a large gap between their CA and PA I won't bother, he'll never fulfill it, it's already "too late". He might become a very good player, but he'll never max out his CA.

And when you do buy a young player, the best way to increase their CA is to play them instantly. Loaning out is decent, but you can only loan from 17, and you only have a window of the next 4 years to really max out that players CA, so can you afford to rely on loans? Not really. Loaning is good for those 3 star PAs who you wanna improve and sell for some tidy profit, but the 4/5 star PAs, get them in your first team squad asap. Get them in there at 15, play them in cups, subs when winning, starting in easier games etc.

Edited October 10, 2019 by FMExperiment

[santy001]

There's a fair bit of misinformation there @FMExperiment

- Player development: The game now has different ways in which this will work and you could play the first scenario a thousand times and end up with different outcomes. However, a largely almost developed player being dropped down to 20 can give a predisposition towards development because they've got high positive attributes that influence development. 

- Young players: Training facilities play a larger part <18 and once 18 and over then game time at a relevant level starts to come into the mix. The star ratings staff come out with are also only ever a guess by in-game staff and are relative to the squad you've got and the level you're at in football. There's massive potential for mistakes and therefore its hardly a definitive system.

- - - 

Ultimately @WojciechZed it depends entirely on how you play. You might have a really poor player but his strong areas suit your tactic really well. If you play a deep line that counters on the break acceleration will be a far more important stat than it would in a slow methodical break down style of play. 

I've had players who looked on the surface to be poor players, but they had one or two things that made them useful in my tactic and even though they were 90CA players or less continue to play well in my side from the Conference up to the Championship and in one case even the Premier League itself. Additionally on FM19 I did have a thread in career updates where a player with mid-90's CA was in my CL winning team. He wasn't first choice but injuries had forced my hand and there were no issues because he was in a position that didn't compromise his weaknesses. 

[FMExperiment]

7 hours ago, santy001 said:

There's a fair bit of misinformation there @FMExperiment

- Player development: The game now has different ways in which this will work and you could play the first scenario a thousand times and end up with different outcomes. However, a largely almost developed player being dropped down to 20 can give a predisposition towards development because they've got high positive attributes that influence development. 

- Young players: Training facilities play a larger part <18 and once 18 and over then game time at a relevant level starts to come into the mix. The star ratings staff come out with are also only ever a guess by in-game staff and are relative to the squad you've got and the level you're at in football. There's massive potential for mistakes and therefore its hardly a definitive system.

 

I've found it's very difficult to improve stats meaningfully once a player hits mid 20s unless there is a significant gap between his CA and PA. I've played games with the editor on to check CA/PAs quite often this iteration. I'm not quite sure what you mean about the first example though, sure gametime/injuries can effect things, but the purpose was to say all things being equal, a younger player develops more than an older player. Pogba won't ever improve in FM19 at the age of 25, I can run more tests but I've ran them so much I'm honestly a bit bored of it lol. Pogba with the same attributes improves at 20 because he is younger, I'm just not sure what the misinformation is here?

I respect your point about young players and I have noticed young players do get nice attribute increases from training only, however I was just saying if you leave a 15 year old in your U18 academy then it's not going to be as effective as throwing him straight into the first team. I wasn't really saying training is useless (at least it wasn't my intention to do so), I was more saying if you have a 15 year old player with very high PA you will never get him to hit that PA unless you start playing him ASAP in the first team. I also find this logical since people shouldn't be able to max out PA easily, it should require a great effort/investment. Like I said the window for maxing out CA largely exists from 15-21 with perhaps 21-24 to fill out that final 15-20CA, if your player is 21 with 150CA and 200PA he will never hit 200PA unless he has miracle hidden mentals and even then I doubt it. I will bet money on that if you want 

So if you have a 15 year old with 200PA can you afford to leave him in the U18s from 15-18 even if training plays a large part? I can get a 30CA increase at 15-16 if I play him in the first team, I've never seen that from facilities/youth games only. So I was just advising if you have a player at 15-16 with 5 star potential and you want to max his PA I see no other way to do so other than put him in the first team and start giving him games. If you rely on training for the first 3 years he will surely still be a good player, but never max CA.

Edited October 10, 2019 by FMExperiment

[BMNJohn]

8 hours ago, WojciechZed said:

Players have a star rating out of 5 for how good they are and how good they could potentially be.

As mentioned by others, Star Rating only your Assistant's or/and your Scout's or/and your staff's opinion relative to the strength of your team. Also and in my experience, Star Rated Potential tends to be highly weighed on their current ability. Star rating can also be modified by form. Compared to actual hidden CA and PA ratings, Star Rating is always 1) relative, 2) somewhat subjective (well computers aren't subjective but I hope you see the point), and 3) can be erroneous. Yes, your staff can (and will) lead you to believe things about the progression of a player that are not true.

For example, it's very easy to see if a player who has a supposed 5 Star Rating in his Potential but say, a 3 Star Rating his his ability is actually making progress or not. You go to his Training page and see his Attribute growth. If it's a bunch of flat lines and assuming you've done everything possible for his development (training, facilities, coaching, playing time, tutoring/mentoring, etc.), it's very possible that he actually has reached his PA. Even if your AssMan tells you he has 3 star current ability and 5 star potential ability. You'll even start reading messages akin to "Player's training hard but he's not making progress".

It's a bit hard for me to explain it well, so I hope I've managed to be understood.

Edited October 10, 2019 by BMNJohn

[WojciechZed]

Okay I didn't realise the star ratings were in relation to your squad. So if you are managing a mid table team in Germany, your scouts may find a player they rate as 4 stars, but that is in relation to your squad. So he would be a great signing and strengthen your team, but a scout from Barcelona would probably only rate him as 2 or 3 stars.

Just to comment on this idea by FMExperiment, that players tend not to develop their attributes beyond their early 20s. If that's the case, it would not really be like real life. A good example IRL would be Virgil Van Dijk. Before he moved to England, he wasn't as good a player as he has become at Liverpool in the last few years. He was a good centre back, but right now he would be considered world class. He made his move over to England at the age of 24 I believe. He is now 28, and I would expect his attribute scores to be a lot better now than they were then, as I assume his attributes in FM19 are much better than his attributes in FM15. If they are much better in FM19 than they are in FM15, then why can't they also rise in game from age 24 to 28? I think players generally not developing their attributes being their very early twenties isn't a good way for FM to do things, if this is the case.

[Saintmat]

12 hours ago, WojciechZed said:

 

Just to comment on this idea by FMExperiment, that players tend not to develop their attributes beyond their early 20s. If that's the case, it would not really be like real life. A good example IRL would be Virgil Van Dijk. Before he moved to England, he wasn't as good a player as he has become at Liverpool in the last few years. He was a good centre back, but right now he would be considered world class. He made his move over to England at the age of 24 I believe. He is now 28, and I would expect his attribute scores to be a lot better now than they were then, as I assume his attributes in FM19 are much better than his attributes in FM15. If they are much better in FM19 than they are in FM15, then why can't they also rise in game from age 24 to 28? I think players generally not developing their attributes being their very early twenties isn't a good way for FM to do things, if this is the case.

I think this is exactly the situation in FM (given the evidence), and probably, it's very very very difficult to model development for 'late bloomers' simply because it  is beyond the scope of the current game to identify the qualities of players who do this. Players like Van Dijk are very much the exception to the rule, they perform above the typical developmental curve. Understanding why this happens in real life is hard enough. If SI wanted to model it in the game, they would need to be quite confident about which parameters are used to cause the late development to occur - and I don't think they can be.

[Junkhead]

I think consistency and things like pressure/big games can massively impact things here.

 

Take the example of a 2 players. The first is young, has a "long shots" (for arguements sake, but any visible attribute could be relevant to the point) value of 5. I would therefore logically (and I know this isn't an exact science) expect 5 out of 20 - or a quarter - of his long shots to be pretty decent providing my base tactic and the tactic of the opponent allowed for this. However, his big games & handling pressure stats are also high. I would then expect that quarter to rise on his debut, or in a big cup game, for example. The actual attribute would still say 5 though. And then if we factored in that he had, say, a 15 for consistency, I would expect even further that his long shots were decent more of the time.  His attribute would still say 5 though.

 

Alternatively, you have an older player with an attribute for long shots of 15. My logic tells me that 75% of the time I'm hoping to see decent long shots (tactics allowing). However, his big games, pressure and consistency attributes are all 1. Put simply, I would fully expect the first player to score with more long shots in this scenario, despite the second player having three times the value in the attribute.

 

Maybe I am barking up completely the wrong tree with how it works, but I generally consider that comparing one attribute directly to another is nothing like deep enough to set my expectation. Someone who can do "maximum" long shots of 15 is all well and good, but if they are only doing a 15 long shot in 5% of games, and even less in big or high pressure games (if the attribute was 1/20) then you might as well not bother.

[WojciechZed]

I don't think Van Dijk is the exception to the rule, I think it's very normal for many players to improve, even after they are 22. I mean, take players at Liverpool alone like Mane and Salah, who were good when they first joined Liverpool, but not as good as they are now. Salah for example, is 27 now. He joined Liverpool when he was 25. He joined them as a very good player, but in the past 2 years I would say he has improved further still, to become one of the best. 

Players are constantly improving. It's down to hard work. They constantly work on areas of their game, or at least, the more professional ones do. A player doesn't hit an attribute of 11 or 12 for, let's say shooting, at the age of 22, and that's it, he isn't capable of improving shooting anymore from them on in his career. Football players can improve season upon season, or decline in quality too. That's why SI probably alters the attributes of players in FM year after year, trying to make it as close to IRL as they can. It doesn't only change the attributes of players under the age of 22.

[styluz05]

I have a winger in my current Salernitana save in Serie A, and his attributes are average to say the least, but consistently gives me 15 assists and 10 goals last 3 seasons, been fighting it out with AC Milan last few years, and finally looks like may win the title.  

[BMNJohn]

@WojciechZed: In a sense, FM somewhat (huge grain of salt there) has Mental development at the late stages of one's career. Older players tend to have pretty good Mental attributes, which makes them very well suited for Tutoring/Mentoring. However in matches, physical attributes in FM decline way quicker than they do IRL. 32+ years old outfields quickly become irrelevant physically, which makes their growth in Mental attributes pointless. If you cannot get to the job, it doesn't matter how smart you are at said job.

Someone had ran an experiment where they found that players past their 30s when the save starts tend to be still pretty decent physically, as they were scouted by real people. However and once the save kicks in, you see fewer and fewer 35 yo players. They just tend to retire around that age or become physically impotent. I think it's this thread.

 

[SdsuRaiders]

This is one of those players you just embrace. Which In my opinion, makes games football manager and OOTP so much fun. I will say that ratings typically matter. The long shot rating is one I’ve always questioned however. But I’ve had Many players I’ve brought up because of injuries or played in games to rest a starter and they end up earning PT despite their rating because of their performance on the pitch. I wouldn’t look to figure out why this player is performing better than expected, I would believe my squad had better depth after the performance and the supporting cast mask his deficiencies. I’ve tinkered with my tactics for guys like the one you have explained in emergency Injury situations and have completely screwed things up or found a guy who has a chance to be a solid depth guy I can count on. 

[Zardoz]

Had that experience with a young player at the weekend:

It was the preparation phase for the next PL saison. Players were not yet fit and many friendlies to play. In one case I had to use a youngster of 17 or 18 as left wingback who has great mental attributes and a sparkling perspective but of course low technical values. Crossing is at 9.

He was the man of the match. 2 perfect timed crosses I had never seen before in FM of him were nodded or volleyd in by the strikers and finally he made himself a goal. I am considering to test him in cup games in the first team.

He is a great talent with great mental attributes but I never expected such crosses.

 

[JosephSco]

The whole system is a mess always has been for player ability and for value. FIFA manager handled it a lot better, e.g. your average striker scored 20 goals at the top level, his key stats improved as did his overall ability. Under the FM system late bloomer players like Jamie Vardy and the Chelsea youngsters this season like Abraham and Mount who have rapidly raised their level in a short space of time (but you would never play them for Chelsea based on their beginning of the season stats in FM), just never appear. For a game that prides itself on being a simulation that is critical for me, players getting first team games need to get respective increases to their value and potential based on the level of those games and their performances, with youngsters and players moving to bigger leagues in particular getting rapid development if they do well.

[Finochio]

On 11/10/2019 at 15:20, BMNJohn said:

@WojciechZed: In a sense, FM somewhat (huge grain of salt there) has Mental development at the late stages of one's career. Older players tend to have pretty good Mental attributes, which makes them very well suited for Tutoring/Mentoring. However in matches, physical attributes in FM decline way quicker than they do IRL. 32+ years old outfields quickly become irrelevant physically, which makes their growth in Mental attributes pointless. If you cannot get to the job, it doesn't matter how smart you are at said job.

Someone had ran an experiment where they found that players past their 30s when the save starts tend to be still pretty decent physically, as they were scouted by real people. However and once the save kicks in, you see fewer and fewer 35 yo players. They just tend to retire around that age or become physically impotent. I think it's this thread.

 

I couldn’t agree more. Since FM 12, every save that I have I make a plan to sell or not renew contracts of players of 32+ years old (of course there are some exceptions, specially when I’m not managing great teams on great leagues). I remember once a time at CM0102 when I brought Pavel Nedved to play on Brazil, he had 37 years old, but the effects of his football were devastating to the league. Even that his physical abilities were decreasing, he shown amazing passes and goals.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Finochio

[oblongata21]

On my Newcastle save a couple of years ago, Rolando Aarons turned out to be a superstar, despite only having 2 and half stars which was the weakest winger I had in my first team. Still dont know why but since then I started choosing my team based on merit rather than ability, and it seems to work pretty well that way

[Hovis Dexter]

1 hour ago, oblongata21 said:

On my Newcastle save a couple of years ago, Rolando Aarons turned out to be a superstar, despite only having 2 and half stars which was the weakest winger I had in my first team. Still dont know why but since then I started choosing my team based on merit rather than ability, and it seems to work pretty well that way

Could you expand on that? Are you ignoring stars and looking at last five games or average rating or training?

[oblongata21]

On 09/11/2019 at 16:59, Hovis Dexter said:

Could you expand on that? Are you ignoring stars and looking at last five games or average rating or training?

Over a season, his game average rating was almost 7.5. I dont recall the exact stats as it was a few years ago but I originally bought him in as my normal starting winger at that point had a serious injury and was out for a few months.