Question related to another attribute test on reddit (non meta attribute test)

[lied90]

Reddit non meta attribute test

In short, another test with some obvious shortcomings, small sample size etc that indicates how some attributes have little to no impact on results. I'm not here to discuss another one of these test in detail, I'm simply wondering if anyone have knowledge of tests done that contradicts these results?

Admins can move the topic if this is the wrong place to ask.

Thanks.

[herne79]

1 hour ago, lied90 said:

I'm simply wondering if anyone have knowledge of tests done that contradicts these results?

Yes, literally thousands of hours of testing done by the devs, quality control team and all of the alpha & beta testers most of which are not affiliated to SI.  All of that not only contradicts these “tests” but are also carried out in a much more controlled and detailed manner.  The difference is this testing isn’t released to the public.  Perhaps some of it should be, if only to quickly close down such “tests” .

Edited February 29 by herne79

[lied90]

15 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Yes, literally thousands of hours of testing done by the devs, quality control team and all of the alpha & beta testers most of which are not affiliated to SI.  All of that not only contradicts these “tests” but are also carried out in a much more controlled and detailed manner.  The difference is this testing isn’t released to the public.  Perhaps some of it should be, if only to quickly close down such “tests” .

Ok, but what about anything that players can gain detailed insight to?

[Iro]

34 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Yes, literally thousands of hours of testing done by the devs, quality control team and all of the alpha & beta testers most of which are not affiliated to SI.  All of that not only contradicts these “tests” but are also carried out in a much more controlled and detailed manner.  The difference is this testing isn’t released to the public.  Perhaps some of it should be, if only to quickly close down such “tests” .

 

I agree, these tests are flawed. But my big worry is the silence from SI. If you were correct I think they would have refuted the rumors as they are quite increasing in parts of the community to worrying levels, but instead there is total silence on all Posts regarding this while many less important issues are responded to and put under investigation.

[herne79]

23 minutes ago, lied90 said:

Ok, but what about anything that players can gain detailed insight to?

Other than frequent posts by the developers saying that such tests are flawed or that attributes absolutely do matter?  You either believe SI or you don’t.  Personally I’ve never had any reason to doubt what SI tell us - that’s not just blindly accepting things but based on first hand experience of how they operate, the passion they have for their game and seeing how much testing goes on before each year’s game gets released.  I’d also suggest that if (some? all?) attributes really are pointless then what’s the point in having a global network of Researchers who spend countless hours meticulously going through all player attributes.

Believing that attributes are somehow useless is, quite frankly, stupid.

9 minutes ago, Iro said:

 

I agree, these tests are flawed. But my big worry is the silence from SI. If you were correct I think they would have refuted the rumors as they are quite increasing in parts of the community to worrying levels, but instead there is total silence on all Posts regarding this while many less important issues are responded to and put under investigation.

SI do refute these rumours.  But they tend to get buried in lengthy forum threads.  I agree that these rumours are increasing and it’s about time something was done about it imo.  There are too many echo chamber threads that gather momentum with lots of confirmation bias egging posters on where people who offer better insights get shouted down.  Things snowball from there.  Such people do genuinely believe they are trying to help but they’re so far gone down the rabbit hole of mistrust in SI (some of which is SI’s own doing) they’re no longer prepared to listen to reason.

Test the game for sure, no problem with that at all, just open a bug report on these forums and give the results of the testing to SI for their review.  That’s all that needs to be done but these testers rarely (if ever) do that.  Which is just bizarre.

[lied90]

12 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Other than frequent posts by the developers saying that such tests are flawed or that attributes absolutely do matter?  You either believe SI or you don’t.  Personally I’ve never had any reason to doubt what SI tell us - that’s not just blindly accepting things but based on first hand experience of how they operate, the passion they have for their game and seeing how much testing goes on before each year’s game gets released.  I’d also suggest that if (some? all?) attributes really are pointless then what’s the point in having a global network of Researchers who spend countless hours meticulously going through all player attributes.

Believing that attributes are somehow useless is, quite frankly, stupid.

Ok, I'm not really looking to discuss these things, it just ends up going in a loop in every thread regarding this topic. Simply looking for test that contradicts all the other test floating around about attributes, that is open for everyone to look at.

38 minutes ago, Iro said:

I agree, these tests are flawed. But my big worry is the silence from SI. If you were correct I think they would have refuted the rumors as they are quite increasing in parts of the community to worrying levels, but instead there is total silence on all Posts regarding this while many less important issues are responded to and put under investigation.

I think maybe start a different thread about this if needed, cheers.

[XaW]

1 hour ago, Iro said:

I agree, these tests are flawed. But my big worry is the silence from SI. If you were correct I think they would have refuted the rumors as they are quite increasing in parts of the community to worrying levels, but instead there is total silence on all Posts regarding this while many less important issues are responded to and put under investigation.

SI have said before that anyone who runs any kind of experiment and find strange happenings should upload them as a potential bug and they will look into it. Other than that, what should SI say? "No, that's not how it works"? I mean, you can't prove a negative, so other than saying that I don't see what they could provide? Si have said many times here on the forum that attributes work in connection to other attributes, and that looking at an attribute in isolation will give limited answers.

That said, I do think there are attributes that might have too much or too little impact, but this changes based on updates to the match engine.

44 minutes ago, lied90 said:

Ok, I'm not really looking to discuss these things, it just ends up going in a loop in every thread regarding this topic. Simply looking for test that contradicts all the other test floating around about attributes, that is open for everyone to look at.

What kinds of tests? The flaw with these tests is that, as we've discussed before, they are ran without controlling variables (among other issues), and thus the ones running them don't know if they are looking at a normal situation or an outlier in either direction. SI do have the option to control them, and they've said this is not how it works.

I just can't understand the argument of why SI have to "prove" how their game works? I mean, if you think there's an issue, report it and SI can look at it and react accordingly. Other than that, if you don't trust the word of the developer, well, then I wouldn't buy their game, personally...

[lied90]

38 minutes ago, XaW said:

What kinds of tests?

Anything that is equal to or better than the various test already floating around would suffice.

[XaW]

1 minute ago, lied90 said:

Anything that is equal to or better than the various test already floating around would suffice.

Any less vague answer? You are asking them to spend time away from either improving the game for devs, QA time, etc, and just give a vague answer like this? Also conveniently ignoring the rest of my comment. Let me ask you this, what is your goal for all these discussions you start about the game? If it is to make the game better, then you really gotta explain how this is useful for anyone and how you think these tests by SI will help that. If not, then what is your end goal?

[lied90]

3 minutes ago, XaW said:

Any less vague answer? You are asking them to spend time away from either improving the game for devs, QA time, etc, and just give a vague answer like this?

I haven't asked SI to do anything, please don't put words into my mouth.

11 minutes ago, XaW said:

Also conveniently ignoring the rest of my comment.

Yes, the rest of the comment was not relevant to why I started the thread.

12 minutes ago, XaW said:

Let me ask you this, what is your goal for all these discussions you start about the game? If it is to make the game better, then you really gotta explain how this is useful for anyone and how you think these tests by SI will help that. If not, then what is your end goal?

What I want isn't very deep. I see a lot of tests pop up that all indicate the same thing, so I'm asking if anyone know of tests that contradicts this. I find these tests interesting and they influence how I play the game.

[herne79]

28 minutes ago, lied90 said:

Anything that is equal to or better than the various test already floating around would suffice.

As said, in answer to your posed question, yes there are plenty of much more thorough and rigorous tests which have been carried out which contradicts these Reddit results.  You just can’t see them because they have been carried out by both in house testing teams and non-affiliated people who are subject to non-disclosure agreements.

Attributes matter.

[eXistenZ]

26 minutes ago, XaW said:

Any less vague answer? You are asking them to spend time away from either improving the game for devs, QA time,

Yes, the valuable time they spent on improving player interactions, AI squad building/rotation and a functional J-league.... Sorry, couldnt help to be sarcastic there.

I agree that tests will always be flawed in some way of another (and personally I hate holidaying seasons as a test method). I'd like to see someone like evidence based FM have a go at this. But it does all point to the same-ish conclusion, thats a bit of a tell.

It also aligns with my personal experiences (limited as they might be). I honestly dont have another explanation how this guy, with no (supposedly) relevant mental attribute above 10, got twice player of the year in the championship. Oh wait, he jumps high and runs fast....

[XaW]

3 minutes ago, lied90 said:

I haven't asked SI to do anything, please don't put words into my mouth.

The who are you asking to do the test that disproves this?

3 minutes ago, lied90 said:

Yes, the rest of the comment was not relevant to why I started the thread.

You are looking to see tests regarding how attributes work when SI have told that they work together and are not something to look at in isolation, and me referring to that is not relevant? Ok, then.

5 minutes ago, lied90 said:

What I want isn't very deep. I see a lot of tests pop up that all indicate the same thing, so I'm asking if anyone know of tests that contradicts this. I find these tests interesting and they influence how I play the game.

Well, then I don't think SI or anyone else should spend their time on this, as you can do this yourself. And I certainly don't want SI to spend time explaining this to you instead of working on the game. So good luck on that, I guess,

[lied90]

4 minutes ago, herne79 said:

As said, in answer to your posed question, yes there are plenty of much more thorough and rigorous tests which have been carried out which contradicts these Reddit results.  You just can’t see them because they have been carried out by both in house testing teams and non-affiliated people who are subject to non-disclosure agreements.

Attributes matter.

Yes, I understood this from your first comment.

[herne79]

2 minutes ago, lied90 said:

Yes, I understood this from your first comment.

Then why do you keep asking?  /confused.

[XaW]

1 minute ago, eXistenZ said:

Yes, the valuable time they spent on improving player interactions, AI squad building/rotation and a functional J-league.... Sorry, couldnt help to be sarcastic there.

I agree that tests will always be flawed in some way of another (and personally I hate holidaying seasons as a test method). I'd like to see someone like evidence based FM have a go at this. But it does all point to the same-ish conclusion, thats a bit of a tell.

It also aligns with my personal experiences (limited as they might be). I honestly dont have another explanation how this guy, with no (supposedly) relevant mental attribute above 10, got twice player of the year in the championship. Oh wait, he jumps high and runs fast....

But no one outside SI can control variable to the extent that it can prove anything. Us users can only see trends at best, only SI can actually see what happens below the hood. And I don't think people should stop trying to break the game, far from it, that's only a good thing. But when the result of the test is hyperbole on social media and not reporting it to SI to see if it is correct, then I discount it as useless (as a marker of how the game works, I'm sure those posting it makes money from ads doing it).

As for that guy, well Adama Traore can do well at times too, and he is rather close to that guy, I'd say...

[lied90]

1 minute ago, XaW said:

The who are you asking to do the test that disproves this?

I'm not asking anyone to do tests, I'm asking if anyone has already done it. FM has a very large fan community so someone might have without me being aware.

3 minutes ago, XaW said:

You are looking to see tests regarding how attributes work when SI have told that they work together and are not something to look at in isolation, and me referring to that is not relevant? Ok, then.

I'm looking for something that is not closed to us players. Sorry if I was not clear about this in the opening post.

5 minutes ago, XaW said:

Well, then I don't think SI or anyone else should spend their time on this, as you can do this yourself. And I certainly don't want SI to spend time explaining this to you instead of working on the game. So good luck on that, I guess,

I never expected them to either, so that's fine.

[herne79]

4 minutes ago, eXistenZ said:

But it does all point to the same-ish conclusion, thats a bit of a tell.

No it doesn’t.  At all.  Not even close.

No conclusions should be drawn.  That is sheer folly and leads to this type of thread where people end up believing it.  The ONLY thing that should happen to these “tests” is that a bug report should be started, the data given to SI and they review it.  But that rarely happens and that is the real problem here.

[lied90]

3 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Then why do you keep asking?  /confused.

Because I find tests that are open to be interesting. When I can see the result, method, and flaws myself. This makes it possible for me to draw my own conclusions based on that, which again influence how I play the game.

If no such tests exist then the thread can just die it's natural death.

[herne79]

1 minute ago, lied90 said:

Because I find tests that are open to be interesting. When I can see the result, method, and flaws myself. This makes it possible for me to draw my own conclusions based on that, which again influence how I play the game.

If no such tests exist then the thread can just die it's natural death.

Fair enough .

I’d suggest though that if you draw your own conclusions those conclusions should be based on actual verified data, not just Reddit posts or YouTube videos.  This is why it’s important the data from these tests must be given to SI for verification otherwise potentially erroneous data gets out into the public and myths quickly start and snowball.

[eXistenZ]

9 minutes ago, herne79 said:

No it doesn’t.  At all.  Not even close.

No conclusions should be drawn.  That is sheer folly and leads to this type of thread where people end up believing it.  The ONLY thing that should happen to these “tests” is that a bug report should be started, the data given to SI and they review it.  But that rarely happens and that is the real problem here.

Again, there have been plenty of reports/complains about AI squad building and player interactions/promises being *****. They were supposed to be improved/fixed in FM24, and it turns out they werent.

So is the problem players not filing bug reports per se, or is the problem players not filing bug reports because it doesnt seem to do anything anyway?

[Iro]

14 minutes ago, herne79 said:

No it doesn’t.  At all.  Not even close.

No conclusions should be drawn.  That is sheer folly and leads to this type of thread where people end up believing it.  The ONLY thing that should happen to these “tests” is that a bug report should be started, the data given to SI and they review it.  But that rarely happens and that is the real problem here.

The one that did the test nearly a month ago that got a lot of traction has made a bug report in the bug parts of the forum, and it has had zero attention from SI 

[-Jef-]

4 minutes ago, Iro said:

The one that did the test nearly a month ago that got a lot of traction has made a bug report in the bug parts of the forum, and it has had zero attention from SI 

You mean the one where they decided not to send save files to see EXACTLY what was changed and how it played out?

 

A thread that gained as much traction/comments is under review because OP provided PKM data

 

At the top of every page is a link to how to use bug tracker

 

it clearly says " - For match engine issues, it's useful to have as many pkm examples as possible of an issue where you can"

And meta/non meta attribute mattering or not is clearly a ME issue

Also steps to reproduce is not clear enough for a like-for-like reproduction of a bug

 

 

[lied90]

14 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Fair enough .

I’d suggest though that if you draw your own conclusions those conclusions should be based on actual verified data, not just Reddit posts or YouTube videos.  This is why it’s important the data from these tests must be given to SI for verification otherwise potentially erroneous data gets out into the public and myths quickly start and snowball.

It's just a game, if I draw the wrong conclusions then worst case scenario I will get whopped in my current online save

[herne79]

22 minutes ago, eXistenZ said:

Again, there have been plenty of reports/complains about AI squad building and player interactions/promises being *****. They were supposed to be improved/fixed in FM24, and it turns out they werent.

So is the problem players not filing bug reports per se, or is the problem players not filing bug reports because it doesnt seem to do anything anyway?

The topic is attributes being useless, which is what I’m referring to.  I agree about AI squad building and player interactions - I’m not playing the game atm because of it.

[Iro]

34 minutes ago, -Jef- said:

You mean the one where they decided not to send save files to see EXACTLY what was changed and how it played out?

 

A thread that gained as much traction/comments is under review because OP provided PKM data

 

At the top of every page is a link to how to use bug tracker

 

it clearly says " - For match engine issues, it's useful to have as many pkm examples as possible of an issue where you can"

And meta/non meta attribute mattering or not is clearly a ME issue

Also steps to reproduce is not clear enough for a like-for-like reproduction of a bug

 

 

In that thread SI asked for the PKM file actually it was not provided before that.

[-Jef-]

1 hour ago, Iro said:

In that thread SI asked for the PKM file actually it was not provided before that.

Nor was it provided after that. Neither a save file nor nothing.

[Iro]

15 minutes ago, -Jef- said:

Nor was it provided after that. Neither a save file nor nothing.

No, I mean in your example SI asked for it. In the threads about attributes they never even asked for more data.

[-Jef-]

Just now, Iro said:

No, I mean in your example SI asked for it. In the threads about attributes they never even asked for more data.

But it clearly states in FAQ and 'how to' thread to put PKMs. I do not understand why it's so hard to grasp that. It's just a bunch of nonsense put together without concrete evidence and OP refused to put PKMs because everything is laid out, according to OP. I can see clearly why SI decided not to ask for PKM after he replied to another user who asked for more data before SI could probably even look at the thread.

 

Thread was open at 14:38 and he said he will not give pkms or any data just an hour later.

 

What is SI supposed to reply to that? Seriously asking, because I am curious what you think is appropriate response from SI?

 

" I am not here to do all of SI's testing. I am showing them a basic test that shows some major flaws in the game currently. They can test further If they want, but I don't think you can say I have an "agenda" against SI by showing them a test that seems to show issues in their game. Get a grip. I love this game but if it has issues I would like the developers to hopefully fix them, no? "

 

Problem is not that experiment is detailed very clearly (it's not, it is missing plenty of data relevant to how ME works) but that the EXACT settings cannot possibly be replicated.

[eXistenZ]

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

The topic is attributes being useless, which is what I’m referring to.  I agree about AI squad building and player interactions - I’m not playing the game atm because of it.

Oh I know. i just like to point out that the counterargument "SI says all attributes matter" is pretty meaningless to me (and I think a lot of others) as SI also said they had improved the aforementioned gameplay aspects.....

 

If anything it makes me more sceptic of it

[Iro]

25 minutes ago, -Jef- said:

But it clearly states in FAQ and 'how to' thread to put PKMs. I do not understand why it's so hard to grasp that. It's just a bunch of nonsense put together without concrete evidence and OP refused to put PKMs because everything is laid out, according to OP. I can see clearly why SI decided not to ask for PKM after he replied to another user who asked for more data before SI could probably even look at the thread.

 

Thread was open at 14:38 and he said he will not give pkms or any data just an hour later.

 

What is SI supposed to reply to that? Seriously asking, because I am curious what you think is appropriate response from SI?

 

" I am not here to do all of SI's testing. I am showing them a basic test that shows some major flaws in the game currently. They can test further If they want, but I don't think you can say I have an "agenda" against SI by showing them a test that seems to show issues in their game. Get a grip. I love this game but if it has issues I would like the developers to hopefully fix them, no? "

 

Problem is not that experiment is detailed very clearly (it's not, it is missing plenty of data relevant to how ME works) but that the EXACT settings cannot possibly be replicated.

I agree it was not done according to the rules of bug reporting, and the test itself is not perfect. But things that get hotly debated and worrying parts of the community that is only responded by silence is more like adding fuel to the fire than putting it out.

[-Jef-]

31 minutes ago, Iro said:

I agree it was not done according to the rules of bug reporting, and the test itself is not perfect. But things that get hotly debated and worrying parts of the community that is only responded by silence is more like adding fuel to the fire than putting it out.

But what can SI respond to that?

[warlock]

45 minutes ago, Iro said:

more like adding fuel to the fire

Perhaps people can stop starting fires?

[Iro]

37 minutes ago, -Jef- said:

But what can SI respond to that?

That it is false, that it does not work like the test says? That they will investigate? That their internal tests shows otherwise? That they don't think the test is made in a good way? 

[-Jef-]

44 minutes ago, Iro said:

That it is false, that it does not work like the test says? That they will investigate? That their internal tests shows otherwise? That they don't think the test is made in a good way? 

Because it's a non issue

https://old.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/comments/1b32yw0/refuting_nonmetaattributes_test/

[Iro]

6 minutes ago, -Jef- said:

Because it's a non issue

https://old.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/comments/1b32yw0/refuting_nonmetaattributes_test/

He's doing a great job for the community. But if it is a non issue it should be quite easy for SI to refute also.

[Dbuk1]

9 hours ago, herne79 said:

Yes, literally thousands of hours of testing done by the devs, quality control team and all of the alpha & beta testers most of which are not affiliated to SI.  All of that not only contradicts these “tests” but are also carried out in a much more controlled and detailed manner.  The difference is this testing isn’t released to the public.  Perhaps some of it should be, if only to quickly close down such “tests” .

Someone please release a test that shows that all the attributes matter within the match engine. I have never seen one, only the contrary. Many games have very serious bugs that are not discovered by the developers and fm is a prime candidate for that because they move on to the next addition every year. For players that remember champ man 01/02 (made by the same company), that is a legendary game that is full of bugs and has since been fixed by the community….believe it or not that games match engine had a bug where the CREATIVITY attribute in the match engine was not creativity it was REFLEXES. So a key attribute for an outfield player was actually using a goalkeeper stat within the match engine. This wasn’t even the worst bug within the match engine.

The point of this post is not say fm24 is broken…..just that previous games have been and provide information that is contrary to the “tests” please.

 

 

[santy001]

It's hardly worth the effort for SI to have staff constantly just having to go through putting the time and effort into it though. Especially given the proclivity for most will be to either believe the test and not believe what an SI staff member then posts in response or the opposite way around. 

Maybe you could find a test that does categorically prove that if you set the attributes going from 1-20 just by increasing by 1 for each attribute as you scroll down the columns in the pre-game editor that you create some super player who scores 100 goals a season. It'd raise some questions but it would be kind of irrelevant since such players don't exist in the game. 

The simple reality is that spending the time of staff involved with the development of the game refuting little billy's test 9238 today for several hours only to have to do it tomorrow with little billy's test 9239 tomorrow or the day after is not a productive use of time. You have to save that kind of time wasting for studios who have quadruple A games like Skull and Bones where the developers had like 9 years to kill before releasing a game. 

[Rashidi]

17 hours ago, lied90 said:

Reddit non meta attribute test

In short, another test with some obvious shortcomings, small sample size etc that indicates how some attributes have little to no impact on results. I'm not here to discuss another one of these test in detail, I'm simply wondering if anyone have knowledge of tests done that contradicts these results?

Admins can move the topic if this is the wrong place to ask.

Thanks.

Did my own test live on stream once and I disproved some of these “simple” simulations in 30mins or less. There are simulations done by hardened veterans of the game with feedback from SI because they make their sim results available to them. So I doubt any dev or any serious gamer who understands the match engine take them seriously. Good for a laugh just being brutally honest.

[Rashidi]

7 hours ago, Iro said:

He's doing a great job for the community. But if it is a non issue it should be quite easy for SI to refute also.

Do you think SI have time to go through every so called Reddit test, approach them directly, ask for detailed information and then run their own tests? Actually they have before when these lads actually post a bug report and then share their saves.

It’s akin to accusing someone without evidence. It’s called heresay. So unless these lads have the courage to stand by their convictions and share their saves which produce so called outliers no one will take them seriously apart from controversy courtiers. 

[NineCloudNine]

4 hours ago, Rashidi said:

It’s called heresay.

Is that a combination of hearsay and heresy? 
 

(sorry, couldn’t resist…I’ll get my coat…)

[Dbuk1]

5 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Did my own test live on stream once and I disproved some of these “simple” simulations in 30mins or less. There are simulations done by hardened veterans of the game with feedback from SI because they make their sim results available to them. So I doubt any dev or any serious gamer who understands the match engine take them seriously. Good for a laugh just being brutally honest.

Can you provide a link or attach data of any kind or any test. Just one please so I can look at what a test should look like in your eyes

[lied90]

6 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Did my own test live on stream once and I disproved some of these “simple” simulations in 30mins or less. There are simulations done by hardened veterans of the game with feedback from SI because they make their sim results available to them. So I doubt any dev or any serious gamer who understands the match engine take them seriously. Good for a laugh just being brutally honest.

Is this stream clip uploaded anywhere?

[Jockson]

On 29/02/2024 at 09:58, herne79 said:

Yes, literally thousands of hours of testing done by the devs, quality control team and all of the alpha & beta testers most of which are not affiliated to SI.  All of that not only contradicts these “tests” but are also carried out in a much more controlled and detailed manner.  The difference is this testing isn’t released to the public.  Perhaps some of it should be, if only to quickly close down such “tests” .

Would that be something that SI would even test though? Because it's not really a bug per se. If those claims of "non meta" attributes having little influence in the match engine are true, then they are either deliberately made like that to make the game seem more deep than it is or from all the tweaking to make it play out more like a real life match with close to real life statistics certain attributes ended up way more important than the others. I doubt they would specifically test something like this extensively when they have nothing to gain by doing it. You could literally put a few fake attributes into the game that do absolutely nothing and nobody would ever know.

I too would like to see this video by Rashidi. If it can be disproven in 30mins then hopefully SI does do something to shut those claims down quickly.

[Cometdude]

On 29/02/2024 at 12:23, eXistenZ said:

Yes, the valuable time they spent on improving player interactions, AI squad building/rotation and a functional J-league.... Sorry, couldnt help to be sarcastic there.

I agree that tests will always be flawed in some way of another (and personally I hate holidaying seasons as a test method). I'd like to see someone like evidence based FM have a go at this. But it does all point to the same-ish conclusion, thats a bit of a tell.

It also aligns with my personal experiences (limited as they might be). I honestly dont have another explanation how this guy, with no (supposedly) relevant mental attribute above 10, got twice player of the year in the championship. Oh wait, he jumps high and runs fast....

He's a winger and has the right attributes to be a good Championship level winger (good crossing, dribbling, first touch, technique, determination, speed and agility) not really a surprise and pretty typical newgen type player.