Quasi- philosophy....how bad is an attribute of 1?

[kentonizking]

Be it chronically slow (pace)

Blind (vision)

Stupid (off the ball) 

Trowel footed (finishing)

The first touch of a rapist (first touch)

Or gloves made of butter (handling)

We can all imagine how bad the stat of 1 might be.

 

But with the lower league database taking the game to new lows, and FM editor using 0-100 (source needed) it makes me wonder how bad truly 1 can be? 

Is dave Smith at level 15 Village side 20 times slower than Mbappe?

Is Arnold mugshot 20 times blinder than Kevin De Bruyne? 

Anyone have any thoughts or data or otherwise interesting points on this?

[XaW]

If I've understood it correctly, 1 is the lowest possible you can imagine in a professional footballer. So 1 is likely higher than most of us here on the forum would have in many attributes.

[kentonizking]

11 minutes ago, XaW said:

If I've understood it correctly, 1 is the lowest possible you can imagine in a professional footballer. So 1 is likely higher than most of us here on the forum would have in many attributes.

 

11 minutes ago, XaW said:

If I've understood it correctly, 1 is the lowest possible you can imagine in a professional footballer. So 1 is likely higher than most of us here on the forum would have in many attributes.

That's interesting and makes sense - I wonder if they use any examples as reference points.

 

Take pace for example, who is the slowest professional you've ever seen? 

[XaW]

3 minutes ago, kentonizking said:

That's interesting and makes sense - I wonder if they use any examples as reference points.

Take pace for example, who is the slowest professional you've ever seen? 

I can't say for certain, but I think I've seen some tidbits regarding the researchers and how they are told to rate it, but I don't know. I think @santy001 has written about it before, perhaps he can provide some more insight?

[kentonizking]

For my reference, Norwich had Steve Walsh for a year. He was so incredibly slow it was crazy

[bpecanha]

I was using the editor when I saw this thread, so I've decided to take a look into it. Usually the best player with 1 in a certain attribute (excluding goalkeepers sometimes) has a CA between 80 and 110, but there are some examples below and above that margin.

In South Korea's 2nd tier you have midfielder Bruno Lamas playing for Busan IPARK with Concentration 1 and CA 117.
Kaoru Mitoma's dirtiness is 1, although this can be considered a good thing as well. Obviously his CA is bigger than 110 (149, to be exact)
In Ecuador 1st division, left midfielder Braian Oyola has Jumping Reach 1 and CA 115 (he's just 1.58m, so it's completely understandable)
Anthony Elanga from Nottm Forest has Marking 1 and 130 of CA.

To be honest, I'm from Brazil, so I've never paid attention to Elanga (I don't even know if I have seen a match where he was playing). However, he plays in the Premier League. Considering that a lot of amateur players are in the game at the lower rep teams, I very much doubt that Elanga's marking ability is worse than an average sunday league footballer, imagine then comparing to people who doesn't play at all (like me). He is obviously better.

I think it's used to determine that a player is REALLY bad at something compared to professional footballers, and sometimes I think it's just to give enough room to increase other attributes (I believe this is the case with Elanga).

Funny thing: there was a defender while searching called Kenner Gutiérrez that had 1 for Teamwork, Crossing, Dribbling and Technique, but I think someone was really mad with him because all of his set attributes are really low . His CA is 107, but his recommended CA in editor was 1. And when you load him in FM, he's actually quite good for the level he's playing.

[NineCloudNine]

25 minutes ago, bpecanha said:

Funny thing: there was a defender while searching called Kenner Gutiérrez that had 1 for Teamwork, Crossing, Dribbling and Technique, but I think someone was really mad with him because all of his set attributes are really low . His CA is 107, but his recommended CA in editor was 1. And when you load him in FM, he's actually quite good for the level he's playing.

I’ve seen a couple of these as well and also assumed that the researcher was letting out some personal feelings there . The CA covers it up because the game will scale the attributes to the CA, although starting from 1 those attributes are never going to be strengths!

I believe SI are prevented by licensing from giving players very low personality attributes (a different thing to what is being discussed in this thread ofc) which is why some of the more colourful personality descriptions are only seen on newgens.

[KingCanary]

14 hours ago, kentonizking said:

For my reference, Norwich had Steve Walsh for a year. He was so incredibly slow it was crazy

As another Norwich fan I'd add when we had John Hartson just before he retired. 

Amazing to think he was only 32.

[forameuss]

I'd imagine it would depend what attribute.  For tangible, physical attributes like pace, I'd imagine the range is a bit larger, and a "normal" person could probably rate pretty highly.  You can have zero footballing ability, but still be able to accelerate and then hold that pace in a straight line, or maybe even on the turn.  There's probably also a fair few who would be considered the proverbial brick outdoor toilet.  

But once it gets into the actual footballing attributes, yeah it's likely that 1 is the bare minimum a competent footballer at the lowest reaches of the game could manage.  A level most people will never reach.

[NineCloudNine]

1 hour ago, forameuss said:

I'd imagine it would depend what attribute.  For tangible, physical attributes like pace, I'd imagine the range is a bit larger, and a "normal" person could probably rate pretty highly.  You can have zero footballing ability, but still be able to accelerate and then hold that pace in a straight line, or maybe even on the turn.  There's probably also a fair few who would be considered the proverbial brick outdoor toilet.  

But once it gets into the actual footballing attributes, yeah it's likely that 1 is the bare minimum a competent footballer at the lowest reaches of the game could manage.  A level most people will never reach.

I’m imagining Usain Bolt in his unsuccessful foray into football. Pace, acceleration 20, jumping reach 18 (he’s 6’5”), all other attributes 1-3 .

[Wolf_pd]

4 hours ago, forameuss said:

But once it gets into the actual footballing attributes, yeah it's likely that 1 is the bare minimum a competent footballer at the lowest reaches of the game could manage.  A level most people will never reach.

That's what setting the lower levels so hard. At one moment there isn't much possibility to differentiate in the player data. Having played a few preseason games at the 10th (back then) level in the Netherlands, it was pretty dire, and playing a ninth level team took some effort.

[phnompenhandy]

I'm a "very" lower league manager. When I start c level 15, I often use the editor to give me a starting squad of 22 15-year-olds with CA1 and all attributes of 1.

They tend to manage okay!

[kentonizking]

6 hours ago, KingCanary said:

As another Norwich fan I'd add when we had John Hartson just before he retired. 

Amazing to think he was only 32.

I saw  couple Hartson games for Norwich - carthorse, but was still strong
!

[kentonizking]

1 hour ago, Wolf_pd said:

That's what setting the lower levels so hard. At one moment there isn't much possibility to differentiate in the player data. Having played a few preseason games at the 10th (back then) level in the Netherlands, it was pretty dire, and playing a ninth level team took some effort.

 

I would be interested in seeing some 'highlights' from that level, 

 

I always start unemployed and do a journeyman, then will download the regional leagues and do a further journeyman - it gets fun with the really long pitches and a forward with any amount of pace - how does lower league Nether compare?