Coach reports v stats

Hi guys.

I've searched around to try and see if this question has been answered before as I guess it has, but I couldn't find anything.

I'm struggling to understand exactly how assistants/coaches/scouts decide whether someone is a good player. For example: according to my assistant (judging player ability 18), Matt Kilgallon is the best defender in my team and a decent Premiership player. His stats, however, are rubbish. Tackling 12, Marking 11, Positioning 9, Bravery 10 etc.

I recently signed a quality French CB whose stats are a significant improvement in every area. We're talking 17/18s for nearly all of the stats that should be important for a CB. Bizzarely, Kilgallon is still considered my best defender and there's "not too much difference" between them.

Should I give up on their reports all together and just go for players with high stats, or is there perhaps some massive hidden stats/strange requirements for success that I can't see myself?

thought of ca/pa ?

I try not to look at CA/PA because it feels like cheating, but I've just had a look to try and clear this up. Killa's CA is 130, the other player's 137.

I guess that leads to another question - what's the point of CA? Obviously, it gives an indication of 'current ability', but how can the figures above possibly square with such a massive difference in the stats of the two players? Perquis is head and shoulders above Kilgallon, so why do they have a similar CA? Furthermore, surely in deciding if someone is a good -defender- the assistant's report should have some consideration as to his defensive stats rather than just bland CA?

I use a mix of both.

For Kilgallon for instance your coaches obviously think he has good ability so the questions I would ask myself are:

A) How good are the coaches are judging current & potential ability?

and if so then

B) Are Kilgallon's "ability points" being wasted in areas that aren't as useful, two footedness in particular being a bit of a thorn in this version (It takes up quite a few ability points but is much less useful to DCs as compared to say an attacking player).

Straight away from the screenshot I can see two-footedness is the difference and the main problem.

Ah, cheers. So the reports are based largely (wholly?) on CA and don't actually take into account the fact that certain stats are far more useful for certain positions?

Ah, cheers. So the reports are based largely (wholly?) on CA and don't actually take into account the fact that certain stats are far more useful for certain positions?

Reports are based on CA/PA but there is a relationship between skills and CA points.

Take marking for instance - Much more important for a DC compared to a ST.

For the DC marking is an important attribute and costs CA points. For the ST though its not really important and is virtually free in terms of CA points.

Footedness unfortunately hasn't been balanced as well in this version and costs the same amount of CA points irrelevant of which position the player plays.

Thanks for that, very helpful.