Are Player Attributes Completely Broken?

Forgive me for starting a new thread about this, but I think it's a big enough topic to warrant it's own thread for discussion.

Here's a quote from a thread about free-kicks...

Their Technique rating is also important, as it determines how cleanly they strike a ball.

It's the same for penalties, not only the Penalty rating is important but also the Composure rating.

Have a look at your free takers and see what their Technique rating is. If that is low, it might explain why you score few free kicks.

Which is an arguement I see a lot on the forums, and from the SI guys themselves in the manual and in posts here.

My question is this - What's the point in a player having really, really high free-kick rating (from the question someone asked in the original thread, 18 should be considered huge, certainly international quality since it's the top 10%) but then when he goes to take it, he just scuffs it or can't direct it because his technique isn't good? How can he have the one without the other?

This goes back to a long-time problem I've had with the game multi-statting certain actions. The ability of the player taking a free-kick is the sum of several attrubutes. The game manual states that for a free-kick that's going to be a shot on goal it will consider the player's...

Free-kicks

Long-shots

Composure

Technique

Concentration

And presumably based on these stats we will get an idea of how well placed his shot will be on average, and that will decide whether it makes it over the wall and whether it's placed sufficiently well to make it very hard for the keeper to save. That sounds fine in theory, but let's look more closely at what all those stats break down as.

Long-shots: "The player's prowess at shooting from distance - from outside the penalty area. It is largely a stand-alone attribute"

Composure: "The player's steadiness of mind and ability, particularly with the ball. When faced with a goal-scoring chance....he will be able to keep his head"

Technique: "The aesthetic quality of a player's technical game - how refined they appear to be with the ball....this in turn affects a number of technical attributes. Poor tecnhique will let a player down".

Concentration: "This affects a players concentration on an event-by-event basis" - essentially from the text, it affects the likelihood of a player to make mistakes.

So where does the "free-kicks" attribute come in? If the ability of a player to take free-kicks relies on these factors, why have a free-kick taking attribute at all? Simply having free-kicks 18 is meaningless unless the player is also good at these other four attributes. And if he is not good in these other four areas, how can he be said to have "free kicks 18"?

Who on earth would ever know that deep down, if he could just concentrate, compose himself, shoot from range AND improve his technique, he could be in the top 10% of freekick takers in the world? You would never see him take a good free-kick consistently enough to be able to say "he has free-kicks 18" because he would scuff them so often, blast them over and wide so often, that you wouldn't ever get to see evidence of him being good at free-kicks unless he was somehow awesome at them in training (and what's the point then since he can never use his ability in match).

This is true of many of these multi-stat actions that a player can take. For instance, I have seen players with very high marking attributes that are terrible at marking. Let's use a case example - a player I often sign when I am in the lower leagues because he's on a free and his stats are impressive....on the surface at least.

Seyfo Soley, Gambia:

Marking 16

"Great", I think, "He's a monster physically with strength 19 and Jumping 17. With Marking 16 this guy is an animal at centreback"

But no. In fact, his anticipation of 9, Composure of 9, appalling Concentration of just 5 and Decisions of 12 not to mention tackling 12 and bizarrely low bravery of 14 given his aggression of 17 (so he's very aggressive, but only averagely brave? How does that work? He's all bark and no bite? How does that express itself on a football pitch?) mean he is actually pretty horrible at marking.

How is he horrible? Try buying him. You will often see him making the most horrendous decisions to come for balls he can't make, missing tackles in awful positions and totally leaving the guy he's meant to mark. All behaviours of someone I would say is actually really, really BAD at marking. So why does he have marking 16, which is pretty high?

Is the game implying that he is really very good at marking except for the fact he has pretty bad concentration, sub-average anticipation and composure and is prone to making poor decisions? That sounds a lot like a young Titus Bramble to me. And what did people say about him? That he can't mark for toffee and he's a horrible player and Newcastle should get rid of him as soon as possible.

That's because a player who consistently loses his man and lets him in to score cannot be said to have good marking.

A better system would be to have two kinds of stat:

Those which are totally "stand-alone" to use the manual's term:

Strength

Pace (lose acceleration please it's horrible and makes no sense - a player is quick or they are not and if the two are so closely linked why have two at all?)

Jumping

Composure

Concentration

and so forth. These stats can be said to be totally independent of the others.

Then we have those which are composites of other stats. These stats can ONLY be the product of other stats.

Marking - should be a composite of the stats that manual tells us are important. The stat itself is purely there as an abbreviation and to save people having to add up and average the abilities it depends on. It is purely cosmetic, and no longer a stand-alone attribute.

It should be completely impossible to have a player with marking of 16 like Seyfo Soley, if the stats which his actual raw performance DEPEND on are so poor. Different weightings can be given to each of the feeder attributes for the composite attribute.

i.e. for a player to be good at marking you might weight it as follows. Note that I am grading the physical attributes lower than the mental ones. This is why players like Tony Adams and Paolo Maldini were able to play on for so long, most of defending is mental rather than physical:

Anticipation - 20%

Concentration - 20%

Off-the-ball - 15%

Decisions - 15%

Pace - 15%

Strength - 15%

I remember someone from SI talking about a similar problem a few years back and saying that stats are indeed linked, but the fact is, they are not linked THAT closely. There may be some element of the engine that links current ability and attributes so that you can't have a player with all 20s and current ability 10. There may also be a link between acceleration and pace, but it's still evident that although the game treats certain attributes as composites, they are actually not so in the raw data.

This also makes it clear to the Match Engine that being strong and quick is not the be all and end all of football. Look at the great defenders of the last few years and tell me how many were just brick walls? Yes, you absolutely do get players like that, but was Mattias Sammer or Jurgen Kohler known for their monstrous physicality? What about any number of Italian centrebacks? Most are just extremely good at reading the game, anticipating their opponents run and getting there to stop the attack.

Anyway, would love to know what people think.

My assumption has always been that the free kick attribute (to take only your first example) kicks in after or on top of all the other things.

So, if you have a player with good technique but a low FK rating, he's unlikely to be good at FKs. If you have good technique and FK ratings, then he's your guy. In other words, the FK rating is useful because you can have guys who have all the other qualities, but for whatever reason cannot apply them properly when taking FKs. (And if you want him to shoot at goal from a free kick, obviously long shot is helpful too.)

I will say that as a rule, there are far too few goals scored from direct FKs in the game, though I don't have the RL stats on hand to prove it.

Interesting thoughts on the game and some I agree with, some I don't.

Pace and Acceleration should be kept separate though. Seen plenty of players who are quick at catching up (from being out of position) but aren't naturally that face over say 2/3 of the pitch.

I think it's fine the way it is at the moment. Although Mental and Technical stats need to be more important as currently Physical stats are too high rated.

The manual could explain it better though, but that's part of a much bigger intuitive information problem

Although Mental and Technical stats need to be more important as currently Physical stats are too high rated.

I'd go the other way tbh and say that Mental attributes are given too much power, with not enough emphasis put on Physical attributes.

I'd go the other way tbh and say that Mental attributes are given too much power, with not enough emphasis put on Physical attributes.

You'd be wrong then.

You'd be wrong then.

Seriously though, there was an experiment done last year, where the OP edited players so as they relied on specific sets of attributes i.e. some players had 20's in all mental attributes and 10's elsewhere, whereas other players had 20's in technical attributes and 10's elsewhere. The players with the mental attributes trounced the others, and it appeared to prove that a player with 20 composure and 10 finishing was a better player than one with 20 finishing and 10 composure.

That's all based on 08 btw, not sure about 09.

09 engine definitely favours players with pace and jumping.

Ishmail Miller and Obafemi Martins run rings around me

The way i think of it is that if they have high FK stats they can really crack it. And if you have high Technique and the player will step the right distance from the ball and hit it with the right bit of his foot.

So iff FK is high and Tech is low he can high the ball really well but most of the time he won't place his foot in the right place or hit the ball in the right place. High tech and low FK would mean he can hit it really well by foot placement etc but he wouldn't aim the ball in the right places.

So if they are high which you want they know where they want to put it, and have the tech/ability to put it there.

Seriously though, there was an experiment done last year, where the OP edited players so as they relied on specific sets of attributes i.e. some players had 20's in all mental attributes and 10's elsewhere, whereas other players had 20's in technical attributes and 10's elsewhere. The players with the mental attributes trounced the others, and it appeared to prove that a player with 20 composure and 10 finishing was a better player than one with 20 finishing and 10 composure.

That's all based on 08 btw, not sure about 09.

Well then 08 was on the right track. Do you really think the only difference between players is their physical ability?

As for the whole composure/finishing thing - again, I fail to see how you can have the two as seperate. How can you claim a player is amazing at finishing but is so lacking in composure that he more often than not smashes it over or wide? This is the problem I have that I mention in the OP - that for "finishing" to count as "finishing" it HAS to be the sum of many factors, rather then being it's own attribute that then has a drag factor applied to it by other attributes.

The way i think of it is that if they have high FK stats they can really crack it. And if you have high Technique and the player will step the right distance from the ball and hit it with the right bit of his foot.

So iff FK is high and Tech is low he can high the ball really well but most of the time he won't place his foot in the right place or hit the ball in the right place. High tech and low FK would mean he can hit it really well by foot placement etc but he wouldn't aim the ball in the right places.

So if they are high which you want they know where they want to put it, and have the tech/ability to put it there.

But how can a player be said to have really good FK ability if, as you suggest, he can hit the ball properly - but then another player have a high FK attribute, but due to low technique he CANNOT hit the ball as well. Essentially, for a player to justify a high rating the supporting stats HAVE to be high or else his high FK rating is meaningless as I said in my OP.

You should not be able to have a high FK rating if the supporting stats are not also high. By definition a good free-kick taker has to have those stats high, otherwise his rating is meaningless.

Name one free-kick taker who is known for being an excellent free-kick taker so let's say in FM he would have FKs of 19. But - he cannot shoot from range well, cannot strike the ball well, loses concentration and composure and messes it up often.

As for the whole composure/finishing thing - again, I fail to see how you can have the two as seperate. How can you claim a player is amazing at finishing but is so lacking in composure that he more often than not smashes it over or wide? This is the problem I have that I mention in the OP - that for "finishing" to count as "finishing" it HAS to be the sum of many factors, rather then being it's own attribute that then has a drag factor applied to it by other attributes.

I disagree. There has to be several factors taken into account when judging a striker and one global attribute isn't the way to go.

In my mind finishing refers to the players ability to finish when everything clicks, and composure is one of the attributes that determines how often everything does click. In other words, a player could be the best finisher in the world and every goal that he scores is taken well, but if he doesn't finish very often, there is obviously a factor causing this and his composure may be one of these factors.

The same thing goes for a defender with low concentration and high tackling. When he is concentrating, he will, more often than not, make the tackle, but his concentration determines how often he is likely to be in position to make that tackle.

I think that mental stats are very important in FM09. At last! No more quick and strong bozos that know nothing of the game itself. So I disagree with both Captain Planet and Nomis here.

Back to OP.

About free kicks. This attribute is needed, because some players with good technique, composure, long shots etc are simply bad at free kicks (usually because they are not trained at it). So this attribute is there to tell you who has a possibility of being a good taker (so you should try him and see how it goes), not who is a good taker. Also, I find that players with good free kick attribute and bad long shots are favored by the engine (in dead ball situations), in comparison to those having poor free kicks but good long shots. All in all, I think this has been planned pretty well from SI, apart from the fact that players with decent free kicks (e.g. 13) score too rarely.

About marking. Players who are bad at marking can never mark well. Players who are good at marking but bad in other helpful attributes, may (or may not) mark well depending on the situation. Again, I like it the way it is.

So, while I understand you point, I don't agree. Having said that, Concentration (that has only been introduced in the last few versions) is a poor choice for an attribute and I am of the opinion that the engine could have done without it. But that's the only attribute I have a problem with.

Well player that come to mind are David Beckham, Roberto Carlos, Juninho Pernambucano. All of those people with a ball still and wall they can bend it round and put it into the back of the net. But in open play they very very very rarely just smack it in.

Regarding the mentality/technique/physical attributes - Guess who'll get more goals in the Premiership out of Ishmail Miller and Robbie Fowler. Physical stats are not the be all and end all, but they are far more necessary than anything else.

I bet hundreds of people tries to get Ronaldo back to his best by signing him on the cheap and failed miserably.

I am concerned that you guys aren't actually reading my posts at all. Do you just browse them and then decide to post your own opinions without actually really reading my posts?

There has to be several factors taken into account when judging a striker and one global attribute isn't the way to go.

That is EXACTLY the point of my post. I cannot stress this enough. If you read the OP through again, you'll see that I say this several times. You cannot have one attribute called "finishing" that represents anything meaningful if it can be set high, but all the stats that it relies on are low. That's the point.

What is "finishing" 20 if the players composure, technique, concentration etc. are all low?

In my mind finishing refers to the players ability to finish when everything clicks, and composure is one of the attributes that determines how often everything does click. In other words, a player could be the best finisher in the world and every goal that he scores is taken well, but if he doesn't finish very often, there is obviously a factor causing this and his composure may be one of these factors.

Ahh I see. So a player is a brilliant finisher - one of the best strikers in the world - on the one time in however many that everything "clicks". No, that's not a brilliant finisher. That's every player who plays football. You know how sometimes a right-back meanders up from the back and scores a wonder goal? That's the occasion when everything just "clicks".

A striker with finishing 20 is a striker with finishing 20 because more often than not it "clicks" and he gets in a good shot on target. That's whe he is a striker with finishing 20. He is ruthless in front of goal. He is single-minded of purpose. He is a natural at sticking his foot through the ball and getting great accuracy into his shots.

What you're talking about is a player who can fluke an amazing finish. That's not finishing 20! Any player is capable of hitting the ball 30 yards into the top corner, it's how often they can do it. Having a stat like finishing which IMPLIES they can do it but is actually misleading is my problem.

To have a player with finishing 20, but his composure, technique and so on are all low means that surely he cannot really be said to have finishing 20. Why? Because there is no way for him to exercise this ability given the other factors. At no point will he perform like a player with finishing 20 would be expected to, so the attribute becomes meaningless.

It's modelling something that just DOES NOT HAPPEN in the real world. There is no such thing as a player who is peerless in front of goal when it comes to finishing, but who cannot score because he always panics or cannot strike the ball properly. These players do not exist. The players who balloon the ball miles over and miss lots of chances are not capable of having finishing 20. They should have finishing 8.

The same thing goes for a defender with low concentration and high tackling. When he is concentrating, he will, more often than not, make the tackle, but his concentration determines how often he is likely to be in position to make that tackle.

Again, this is exactly my point. Tackling and concentration are two seperate stats. I have no problem with either and I'm not sure why you used them as examples as they are both things I would say are "raw" stats. Some players have excellent composure and concentration but cannot tackle for toffee (Paul Scholes for example).

As I said, there are certain attributes I would say are raw, and others which are composites. "Finishing" can be reborn as a raw stat - that solves a lot of these problems, but it's not really a true representation for the reasons we've said - that finishing is about multiple stats pulling together. The over-abundance of stats is what has led to this problem. The more stats there are and the more they all depend on each other, the more meaningless they become and the worse they model the real-world, which is the entire point.

If the game engine makes it possible to have a player who is a world-class finisher on a par with Gabriel Batistuta with finishing of 20, but he has no technique or composure so rarely if ever scores, then to me that aspect of the engine is broken. It is possible to have a player who could not, and does not, exist in the real world.

I am concerned that you guys aren't actually reading my posts at all. Do you just browse them and then decide to post your own opinions without actually really reading my posts?

It doesn't look like you read or understood my post, with all due respect, i'm not going to go over it again.

It's hard to make judgements without knowing exactly how the match engine uses each of the attributes in unison with each other.

Finishing can basically be broken down into a combination of composure, decisions and technique - but then so could passing, freekicks, tackling. Anything can be broken down to a set of mental decisions and physical ability.

Again I think it comes down to a lack of user understanding of what each attribute does as there isn't enough information given to us as to how they affect what a player can and can't do.

It doesn't look like you read or understood my post, with all due respect, i'm not going to go over it again.

I broke down your post and replied to each part of it. I understood your point, I just think it's not a very good one. You sort of agreed with what I was saying, but apparently didn't agree, so I'm not sure even you know what you meant now to be quite honest.

The current system is logical and works. Just because you misinterpreted what it all meant orinigally doesn't mean it needs to be changed.

You bring up the case of Acceleration and Pace, which are two completely different things, but are still closely linked. For example, let's just take me and a friend of mine. At full pace I'm quicker than him, quite clearly quicker than him in fact. However, he can accelerate a lot quicker than me, which on the football pitch comes in handy. Not to mention him being more agile.

Then you bring up your complaint about defenders there. Look at Darren Moore, he's a solid bloke, he can mark his man, he's huge and so on. However he couldn't cut it in Derby's defense in the Premiership. Why? Because he was too slow off the mark, didn't anticipate enough and wasn't given enough cover from higher on the pitch. Why is Claude Davis useless then, he seems good enough. He's quick, he's agile, he can certainly head the ball well... BECAUSE HE'S GOT NO ATTENTION SPAN!

"Okay, he's Gerrard on the ball, I have Torres to my left, I just need to make sure he doesn... OOOH! A pidgeon!"

GOAL FOR LIVERPOOL!

I agree with a lot of what the original poster says in many ways, although the freekick attribute could still be included but having a different meaning.

Its maximum would depend on the various other factors mentioned, so you couldn't have players with rubbish technique being great FK technique.

However you good have a attribute to distingush between players who have similar technique, long shots etc. but who practice FKs a lot less.

Finishing is also a tricky one, again its minimum could be based on the relevant mental and technical stats, but could be and addition based on how could a player is at being a "fox in the box"

It doesn't look like you read or understood my post, with all due respect, i'm not going to go over it again.

the problem is the attribute engine allows the possibility of players who can't exist in real life, to exist in the game

do you disagree with the post he made preceding your one that i'm quoting though?

the problem is the attribute engine allows the possibility of players who can't exist in real life, to exist in the game

I have no intention of reading all of his post. Unless he is agreeing with me, he's wrong.

Well player that come to mind are David Beckham, Roberto Carlos, Juninho Pernambucano. All of those people with a ball still and wall they can bend it round and put it into the back of the net. But in open play they very very very rarely just smack it in.

First of all, Roberto Carlos was a terrible free-kick taker. Look at his stats, especially for about the last three or four years he was at Real Madrid. A more over-rated free-kick taker I cannot begin to imagine. That goal against France in Le Tournoi back in 98 or whenever was clearly a fluke - have you seen him do that since? He just smacks the ball as hard as he can. How can you model that? I guess give him "Shoots with Power" and "Shoots From Range" as preferred moves, but you can't give him high FK abilities because he just didn't score many of them! I think the reason they had him take them was to hope that the keeper would spill it and a striker could knock it in, and also because it made the opposition fear for their lives stood in the wall.

Beckham is actually pretty decent in front of goal - again, look at how many goals he scored for Real and he's scored a few for Milan already. He is also a disciplined player and will hang out on the wing a lot more than getting into scoring positions, but when he does get into those spots, I would certainly back him to score. I would say the reason he doesn't score as many as, say, Cristiano Ronaldo is because Ronaldo is much quicker and can run with the ball, and is undoubtedly better at finishing and gets into the box a lot more than Beckham ever did.

Juninho P is a decent example of a player who is good at free kicks but who isn't prolific in front of goal. I would say that again this is due more to where he plays and his lack of pace rather than a lack of ability. I'm sure that if he got into those positions he would finish pretty well from what I've seen of him on Eurosport. He's more of a creator. Half of a strikers ability is surely the fact they make the right runs at the right time to get the opportunity in the first place.

I have no intention of reading all of his post. Unless he is agreeing with me, he's wrong.

Wow, why don't you go mess up someone else's thread you sniffy prat?

I'm kind of mixed on this.

I've not really got into 08 or started with 09 yet, but back in 07 I had a right back with 18 for free kicks (at BSN level), all his other key attributes for taking a free kick were not much better than anyone else in my team 7's - 10's as I recall, but he was an absolute monster and scored 12-15 free kicks a season, at that level I'd hardly ever scored one direct before, so clearly that attribute was having a massive effect.

Having said that, in the same game I remember discovering one of my strikers was great at dribbling up the wing when I had to play him out of position. None of his key stats were particularly outstanding, but having discovered this I could see that his slightly above average ability in pace, acceleration, agility etc, could build together to make a good dribbler, but he didn't have anything about him that obviously marked him out as being more suited to that position.

Wow, why don't you go mess up someone else's thread you sniffy prat?

I'm just being honest, no need to get on like that. :confused:

Name one free-kick taker who is known for being an excellent free-kick taker so let's say in FM he would have FKs of 19. But - he cannot shoot from range well, cannot strike the ball well, loses concentration and composure and messes it up often.

Ian Harte. Do I win a prize?

I have no intention of reading all of his post. Unless he is agreeing with me, he's wrong.

Of course

Its not trolling btw Nomis, try reading all of people's posts before dismissing them, either that or return to your sabbatical.

Too many words.

*Slowly backs out of thread*

I have no intention of reading all of his post. Unless he is agreeing with me, he's wrong.

And from another thread, today:

Sorry, wasn't prepared to read 8 pages worth of thread tbh.

It's not particularly surprising if people are a little impatient with you, if you're not going to make the effort to read their posts first, is it?

Trolling or not, it doesn't say much for a mod feels the need to bring a privately reported issue into the public domain. I'm disappointed tbh.

RT--

You've misquoted me with the second post, which included a to indicate that I wasn't being offish.

Trolling or not, it doesn't say much for a mod feels the need to bring a privately reported issue into the public domain. I'm disappointed tbh.

Oh well.

Now how about reading whole posts and responding to that instead of assuming that just because someone does not agree with you, that they are wrong?

Oh well.

Now how about reading whole posts and responding to that instead of assuming that just because someone does not agree with you, that they are wrong?

Yes sir

A striker with finishing 20 is a striker with finishing 20 because more often than not it "clicks" and he gets in a good shot on target. That's whe he is a striker with finishing 20. He is ruthless in front of goal. He is single-minded of purpose. He is a natural at sticking his foot through the ball and getting great accuracy into his shots.

What you're talking about is a player who can fluke an amazing finish. That's not finishing 20! Any player is capable of hitting the ball 30 yards into the top corner, it's how often they can do it. Having a stat like finishing which IMPLIES they can do it but is actually misleading is my problem.

To have a player with finishing 20, but his composure, technique and so on are all low means that surely he cannot really be said to have finishing 20. Why? Because there is no way for him to exercise this ability given the other factors. At no point will he perform like a player with finishing 20 would be expected to, so the attribute becomes meaningless.

It's modelling something that just DOES NOT HAPPEN in the real world. There is no such thing as a player who is peerless in front of goal when it comes to finishing, but who cannot score because he always panics or cannot strike the ball properly. These players do not exist. The players who balloon the ball miles over and miss lots of chances are not capable of having finishing 20. They should have finishing 8.

I'll keep it short, because I don't have much time.

At Reading, we have a young winger called James Henry (no relation to Thierry). He scores hat tricks from the wing for our reserves. He can finish from all sorts of angles, distances, etc., and can put the ball anywhere in the goal. But most of the time, he just panics, and misses. When he keeps cool, he can slot the ball away perfectly. He's a great technical finisher, but his composure is poor. Ok, he's not RVN, but he's probably the best finisher in our squad- I'm going to say that he's maybe a 16 for finishing, but a 7 for composure.

Low concentration? "Erm, what am I meant to be doing? Here comes the ball! Oh damn, missed it. Hey, I've already scored two when I was paying attention..."

Technique? "Oh bother,that was a rubbish touch. Time to hit and hope... bang, goal!"

Low in all three? "Hey, there's my mum! Hi Mum! Oh no, the ball's coming! Aargh, help, there are defenders all around me! Knock, run, hit, hope! GOAL!"

Basically attributes are way too confusing.

As a coach I think of someone being good at finishing as being good at "finishing, composure, decisions and technique" (in FM09 terms) because without all 4 of these how the hell can he be a good finisher???

Hope somebody from SI reads the thread.. Tedder-road has made some very good points... Time to simplify some attributes...

I'll keep it short, because I don't have much time.

At Reading, we have a young winger called James Henry (no relation to Thierry). He scores hat tricks from the wing for our reserves. He can finish from all sorts of angles, distances, etc., and can put the ball anywhere in the goal. But most of the time, he just panics, and misses. When he keeps cool, he can slot the ball away perfectly. He's a great technical finisher, but his composure is poor. Ok, he's not RVN, but he's probably the best finisher in our squad- I'm going to say that he's maybe a 16 for finishing, but a 7 for composure.

Low concentration? "Erm, what am I meant to be doing? Here comes the ball! Oh damn, missed it. Hey, I've already scored two when I was paying attention..."

Technique? "Oh bother,that was a rubbish touch. Time to hit and hope... bang, goal!"

Low in all three? "Hey, there's my mum! Hi Mum! Oh no, the ball's coming! Aargh, help, there are defenders all around me! Knock, run, hit, hope! GOAL!"

I know the player you mean because he came on loan to my team, Bournemouth. He was good for us while we had him, shame we couldn't keep him for a season...anyway, back on topic.

I think the examples you've given are funny, but not realistic. Having a player who CAN finish from all sorts of angles but rarely does implies that purely "finishing" is not the right attribute for describing him. He is capable of hitting some amazing shots and scoring some amazing goals, which I think it where the "flair" attribute comes in. It's a nice get-out clause for describing a player who sometimes, out of nowhere or seemingly out of character, hits a wonder goal. Someone like David Bentley for instance. He's a flair player and that encompasses a player's ability to do something amazing and unexpected when perhaps they don't always display the skills to do that thing consistently. It's like a magical moment that the player experiences.

Not sure if that works or not, but you make a very good point. It's a good question.

I would say that FM is actually better at modelling a player like him who represents the minority of players. He is inconsistent, capable of random moments of brilliance, but on the whole you end up shaking your head and wondering whether they have a body-double who replaces them at random moments throughout the game.

It's a very interesting point, tedder.

A player can have 20 for tackling, but if he's got 1 for strength, bravery, determination, etc., then he'll probably be useless at tackling in the match. It's hard, though, because there *is* obviously a technical element to tackling which needs to be in place to be good at it. Just because I'm a composed person who makes excellent decisions, I'd still be useless at finishing one-on-ones, because I don't have the technical attribute needed. I guess you could argue that what I'd need is 'technique' as well as these mental stats, and I should be good at finishing - I don't know.

I wonder how the researchers interpret all of this when they assign attribute scores to players at their club.

I wonder how the researchers interpret all of this when they assign attribute scores to players at their club.

That's an easy one. They do the best they can. Unfortunately, not all of them underastand these subtle points about attribute combination perfectly, and this couldn't be any different. Also, they have no knowledge of the latest match engine (the one that will use their latest entries), not to mention that they are probably asked to disregard the ME (so that the database in not useless when the ME changes). This means that they cannot foretell how exactly the combination will take place. So, as I said, they do the best they can. Given all the above, they do a pretty decent job.

As for the whole composure/finishing thing - again, I fail to see how you can have the two as separate. How can you claim a player is amazing at finishing but is so lacking in composure that he more often than not smashes it over or wide?

Very easily - I think you need to step back as you are obviously not understanding how attributes work together. for instance I play 5s on a saturday morning and I'm predatory in front of goal as long as it's a split second reaction thing. I'll bang in goals from all over the place then have an easy chance to score with lots of time and fluff it. So in FM terms I have good finishing but poor composure.

It's really quite logical when you stop and think about it.

Very easily - I think you need to step back as you are obviously not understanding how attributes work together. for instance I play 5s on a saturday morning and I'm predatory in front of goal as long as it's a split second reaction thing. I'll bang in goals from all over the place then have an easy chance to score with lots of time and fluff it. So in FM terms I have good finishing but poor composure.

It's really quite logical when you stop and think about it.

this is understandable in a way, but you cannot be an amazing finisher if there are many chances that you don't "finish"

I'm sorry, but you have good finishing and you miss an easy chance to score? And this is logical?

Can anyone give me a real life example of a player who's a prolific finisher but he looses it in a tet-a-tet situation? Or a defender who can mark perfectly but has not the consentration to follow his man?

For me a good finisher is a good finisher all the times, that's why he is a GOOD finisher ffs!

Very easily - I think you need to step back as you are obviously not understanding how attributes work together. for instance I play 5s on a saturday morning and I'm predatory in front of goal as long as it's a split second reaction thing. I'll bang in goals from all over the place then have an easy chance to score with lots of time and fluff it. So in FM terms I have good finishing but poor composure.

It's really quite logical when you stop and think about it.

Your example is not just about your ability - it's also about the fact that the defence and keeper have less chance to do anything when it's a "split second reaction" which implies that it's a snap shot from a sudden chance. I think it should be considered much easier to score from a quick chance in front of goal because essentially the keeper is relying entirely on making a reaction save and being in roughly the right position. In a one-on-one, the keeper has a chance to guess what you are going to do and make it very hard for you.

As much as people talk about one-on-ones being "easy" chances, it's never easy. A clear cut chance for me is any shot or header from inside the 6-yard box. One-on-ones are actually quite difficult to score by comparison.

I do think you give a good example though of the composure needed when presented with something like a one-on-one. But your finishing - or the finishing of striker in FM - might then be considered the summary of finishing, technique, concentration, composure and off-the-ball.

So - although you are lacking in composure, relative to the level you are playing at your other attributes make up for that shortfall. So your finishing is high, but in certain situations it's not as good. I would say that you lack composure in one-on-ones rather than composure overall though. That could be a sort of "Negative" Preferred Move if you like. It could also be considered a mental block.

That's another point entirely though and I'll get back on topic - The biggest issue I have with your point is that you clearly demonstrate in other areas of your finishing that you are good at it. So it's not at all strange if we give you a high finishing score and high other attributes but that you are let down by that one area. If we were to give you a finishing attribute that was far more tightly tied in to those other attributes then we would see a more complete picture.

Imagine instead if you claimed that you were awesome at finishing but you didn't take those snap-shots or sudden chances either. That you routinely struck the ball badly and so on. In what way could you say then that you were "good at finishing"? You couldn't, because you clearly aren't.

However, in FM it's possible for me to give a player really good shooting, but all the other stats are terrible. For me, it doesn't add up.

I totally know what the OP is saying...why is there a free kick attribute? If there is need for a free kick attribute, surely it should be made up of a weighted value of other attributes. Same for corners and penalties! If you want a good dead ball taker you will look for...off the top of my head...

Technique - someone with good technique because its striking a dead ball

Composure - because you have all the time in the world to hit the ball because no one can tackle you. Plus the penalty or free kick could be in the dying seconds and you need to score it to win the game.

They are the two most important things. However for corners you will also need crossing ability. Penalties = Finishing. Direct Free Kick = Long Shots.

As it stand right now a player could have a 20 in penalty taking and a 1 in finishing, technique and composure...that to me makes no sense.

For me a good finisher is a good finisher all the times, that's why he is a GOOD finisher ffs!

Exactly. Therefore, a player with great finishing is not a great finisher, unless he's also greatly composured. I don't know why this is so difficult to accept.

What does it mean to be great at finishing without being greatly composed? It means that you can score very easily when you feel no psychological pressure, but you are often stressed, and that's when (and only then) you mess things up.

To answer your question, tedder_road, I think they are all over the place. Also I note that you make some very fair points, and so I sympathize with your complaint about attributes.

Decision

I don’t think it’s anyone right sitting back watching a game to debate decision making on a football pitch. At the moment a player attempts something, it is potentially effective or not. There is always the chance of successfully attempting a move, or to make up for it, and even when something doesn’t go exactly to plan, it leads to a completely different situation. The game of football is just too fluid to leave to be determined by a fixed path. In retrospect, of course it’s possible to claim that a player should have done this or that, etc., and also to say that a player had the right idea, even when a move was disappointingly unsuccessful. The stat Decision is incorrect in my opinion. It shouldn’t determine the odds of making the right decision. How do you decide what is the right decision? I believe there are some clear wrong decisions but a player can do so many things that would be deemed right that this stat should become futile. If instead Decision represented how quickly a player made up his mind, than we would be moving in a different territory. If you don’t see where I’m coming from just ask yourself why is possession football far more effective than most other strategies? Where is the predictable path to be followed when a team strings 25 passes together before finding the back of the net?

Pace and Accelaration (I totally agree with you on that one)

Interesting thoughts on the game and some I agree with, some I don't. Pace and Acceleration should be kept separate though. Seen plenty of players who are quick at catching up (from being out of position) but aren't naturally that face over say 2/3 of the pitch.

That’s absolute nonsense. And you’ve seen players who are quick over longer distances but who are not quick to accelerate?

The Pace (top speed) / Acceleration association maybe good for SNES race car games, wrongly suggests that a player has a maximum speed and a stable acceleration rate that are independent from each other. To show just how inaccurate this system is, consider the foolishness of trying to identify the two extremes using opposite levels for pace and acceleration--a player with breathtaking maximum speed but is very slow to get going, and a player who picks up a lot of pace really fast but is extremely slow.

Admittedly perhaps reaction and explosion come into question when picking up early pace from a static position. However, even in athletics that difference is incredibly slight. You scarcely see a big difference between a fast starter and the winner of the race during take off that is solely due to the power of the start. Reaction surely played a role also, and by then it is farfetched to claim that a sprinter has a steady acceleration rate until reaches VO max. All he has is his natural pace that he channels the best he can with efficient running form. Acceleration is just an operation that is made afterwards by dividing average speed from 0 to VO max by the length of time to reach the latter. So why account for that in a football simulation is beyond me, although it all stems from the belief that a player has a maximum speed that he is trying to build up to with his acceleration. It all seems a practical system. However, it doesn’t make much sense. Unless we are going to account for power and reaction, which allow for an explosive start, let pace just be pace please.

I don’t even want to talk about Finishing. What is that stat supposed to mean without Composure—that you have a high ratio of putting the ball on target, that you are easily capable of finding the corners, does it affect headed attempts? Also I was really stunned to learn about Free Kicks, and I’m afraid a similar dilemma exists for Corners. Maybe as you say some stats should be obvious composites of others, which would thus eliminate some illogical scenarios we can have in the game.

Overall I think with the depth that FM has and it’s claim for realism, they should do a better job with attributes. They are not bad as they are, but we are in our right to expect some sensible changes in the future.

I also think this is one of the weaker aspects of the game. I agree with these examples what can be classified as secondary attributes which should be a combination of primary attributes.

I also think there should be a cap of perhaps 8 points on the differential between all linked attributes.

Too many cooks spoil the supper.. Similarly too many attributes confuse the user...