Consistency

[Finners]

Firstly, I'm aware questions get asked frequently about consistency. I've had a good google and it's a common topic of conversation. But most posts I can find are about how to improve it, does it improve, by how much, is it important, etc.

Do we have anywhere an actual firm explanation of how it actually works? I'm talking mechanically.

I see a LOT of anecdotal posts, lots of screenshots of players with low consistency who have performed well or poorly, lots of "oh my player gets 6.2, 6.2, 6.3, 9.0, 7.5, 6.2" and other such stuff, lots of confirmation bias and so on.

I'd like to know what it's actually doing? Is it effectively rolling a dice before every game and adjusting technical and mental stats down accordingly on bad days? Do they ever get adjusted up? Can it be off-set by good man-management (again, asking technically not anecdotally.)

Or is the answer to all of this just "we don't really know, let the mystery be"?

[phantombandit]

At the beginning of each match the game basically does a 'dice roll' to see what their ability will be for that game. This is to represent real life fluctuations, and the fact that some people just have off days. Their consistency reduces the chance that their roll be significantly below their actual ability (I do not know if this makes it less likely they will play above their rating tho. Additionally, if they dislike big matches they will be more likely to roll low, and if they love big matches they will be more likely to roll high.

[santy001]

Consistency is a measure of how often a player will perform at their ability in its loosest terms. The number corresponds to X games out of Y. Even a player with 20 consistency will not be at their peak every single game however. 

The extent to which it impacts a player is exacerbated, or mitigated, by other things. Important matches - a positive or negative score in a big game could be a difference maker. Attributes like professionalism is mitigating attribute because the player is more prepared in other aspects typically speaking. Determination & work rate, while potentially lowered in effect by a player hitting a low point in their consistency being naturally high can offset these. In some rare instances though, again it could be a negative because a player may keep trying and mess up more when perhaps a lazier/less determined player would shy a way and just be a passenger rather than an active hinderance. 

The way you deploy a player tactically can also mitigate or soften the peaks and troughs. If your team offers the DM a simple pass all the time, he just needs to be there to add an extra body/block a passing lane and occupy opposition players then his inconsistency is irrelevant. If this is your position where you turn defence to counter, need that player to take up fantastic spots and ping off inch perfect passes down field, consistency is of paramount importance. 

There's no hard and fast rule, if you have an incredibly specialised role for a player, and he can only really meet it when he's at his peak then its likely when he's at his peak you'll get fantastic performances yielding much higher ratings than most other players and poor ratings whenever he's not there. Countering this, if you have a fantastic consistent, amazing player but you're only asking him to do the basics he's never going to excel. There's no right or wrong, and best of all, there's never going to be any level of understanding or information you can get about this whereby you can get all the positives lined up and all the negatives eliminated pre-game. If you go conservative with good players you're just wasting them if they're at their peak ability. If you go gung-ho and they're not at their best you're compromising your teams chances. 

[enigmatic]

To add further detail, consistency basically just affects how likely a player is to play as if their technical and mental attributes are a bit below their displayed levels

So if his technical and mental attributes are well above average for the level, his performances will likely still be good on a bad day. Or bad every game if those attributes aren't good enough for the level even if he is consistent. And a super physical player with rubbish decision making who's useful for his side because he wins a lot of headers will likely still be good at heading the ball in random directions for teammates to chase on a bad day.

And the average rating is based around what the player (and his teammates) do in game, so if a player performs to the best of his technical ability but loses 5-0 to a much better side he will get rubbish ratings, or if a player is well below his best but manages to score a tap in or win loads of headers against a short opponent, he might be MOTM. 

And consistent players can still play below their ability occasionally, and more often for other reasons like very low morale and fitness