Consider these 3 screenshots

[scythian12]

Please can someone explain WTF is going on? Both of them have been used in the same competition.

 

[whatsupdoc]

No idea what we are looking at / for?

[FrazT]

Perhaps it would be better if you take the time to let the community know what you think the issue is rather than we all look and draw the wrong conclusion.

[scythian12]

Sorry, let's try again, it seems the screenshots were not uploaded correctly :-/

So I have two goalkeepers, Kamory Diabaté and fresh youth signing Mailson Veilho

Diabaté is clearly the objectively much better GK

Yet he is objectively also much worse on the field (in the ME at least) - and I got fed up with him in a game so much that I decided to give Velho a go and he has been much more solid despite his tender age.

Now the question begs to be answered: WTF? The only thing I see Diabaté being worse in is 10 cm shorter and correspondingly smaller jumping and aerial reach. But his problems are not necessarily with not fishing the ball out of the air, but just keeping easy balls out in my experience. I would like a second opinion on this anomaly as I am rather at a loss to explain anything here, and GK is kind of a key position in this year's FM as they seem to decide solely whether you will scrape in points in those close matches.

[Cloud9]

14 minutes ago, scythian12 said:

Sorry, let's try again, it seems the screenshots were not uploaded correctly :-/

So I have two goalkeepers, Kamory Diabaté and fresh youth signing Mailson Veilho

Diabaté is clearly the objectively much better GK

Yet he is objectively also much worse on the field (in the ME at least) - and I got fed up with him in a game so much that I decided to give Velho a go and he has been much more solid despite his tender age.

Now the question begs to be answered: WTF? The only thing I see Diabaté being worse in is 10 cm shorter and correspondingly smaller jumping and aerial reach. But his problems are not necessarily with not fishing the ball out of the air, but just keeping easy balls out in my experience. I would like a second opinion on this anomaly as I am rather at a loss to explain anything here, and GK is kind of a key position in this year's FM as they seem to decide solely whether you will scrape in points in those close matches.

Aerial Reach is a key stat on a goalkeeper (actual height and jumping reach are not important here). 10 is a non starter but 6 is beyond the pale unacceptable for a gk.

Ignore the star rating and just look at the attributes themselves.

Edited May 20 by Cloud9

[DP]

25 minutes ago, Cloud9 said:

Aerial Reach is a key stat on a goalkeeper (actual height and jumping reach are not important here). 10 is a non starter but 6 is beyond the pale unacceptable for a gk.

Ignore the star rating and just look at the attributes themselves.

So the star rating is flawed then? Something has to give. 

[lied90]

2 hours ago, scythian12 said:

Sorry, let's try again, it seems the screenshots were not uploaded correctly :-/

So I have two goalkeepers, Kamory Diabaté and fresh youth signing Mailson Veilho

Diabaté is clearly the objectively much better GK

Yet he is objectively also much worse on the field (in the ME at least) - and I got fed up with him in a game so much that I decided to give Velho a go and he has been much more solid despite his tender age.

Now the question begs to be answered: WTF? The only thing I see Diabaté being worse in is 10 cm shorter and correspondingly smaller jumping and aerial reach. But his problems are not necessarily with not fishing the ball out of the air, but just keeping easy balls out in my experience. I would like a second opinion on this anomaly as I am rather at a loss to explain anything here, and GK is kind of a key position in this year's FM as they seem to decide solely whether you will scrape in points in those close matches.

It might just be random. If you put some U21 GK in goal for Liverpool in 10 matches he might not concede more than Alisson did the previous 10, same thing in FM. 

Same thing when people here post two strikers with one being clearly better but scoring less. Over time the best player will perform better, but they might not over a brief period of time.

FM is just a dice game afterall.

[NineCloudNine]

I always pick on form. If that means a kid keeps a regular out of the team, so be it.

And as @Cloud9 says, the jumping and aerial reach of your older keeper are unacceptable.

[Cloud9]

7 hours ago, DP said:

So the star rating is flawed then? Something has to give. 

It has several factors that can be misleading, stars reflect registration value to the squad, positions played, the coach rating them, and fluctuate with player form. They can be somewhat useful in judging how much the coaching staff thinks a young player can improve, but even this should be taken with a grain of salt. They are also only relative to the strength of the other players in your squad.

When putting together your tactic/strongest 11 I would ignore the CA stars all together. In these situations it can only mislead you. The attributes impact how a player will perform for you in the role you choose. Similarly the highlighted attributes for a role are the games suggested attributes, but the player will execute whatever role you put him in with his entire attribute spread.

A large part of putting together a strong tactic is figuring what attributes you're looking for in each position. That will be dependent on your style of play (for example a defensive approach demands high mental attributes such as concentration, anticipation, decisions, composure etc. to prevent mistakes). Another example: a player the game labels a 4 star DM could be a decent player in a pivot but would be a problem for your tactic as a solo 6 in a 4-3-3 based on his low jumping Reach (important to cut out counters). The same goes for strikers: a 2 star striker w/pace will be able to thrive in a midblock, where as a 4 star striker w/out pace will struggle with all that space in front of him.

Edited May 20 by Cloud9

[kevhamster]

On 20/05/2024 at 07:17, DP said:

So the star rating is flawed then? Something has to give. 

Yes, the star rating system is flawed, but that is by design as far as I can tell.  The star ratings you see are based on the opinions of your staff, which depending on their ability to judge current and potential ability may be some way wide of the mark.

However, even when you have staff which have good ratings for judging ability, they don't always get it right.  So, I'd say only ever use them as a rough guide and trust your own eyes when it comes to players.

This video, which I watched a little while back, is quite eye opening when it comes to star ratings:

 

Edited May 21 by kevhamster