CA/PA Or Very High Stats But Very Low CA/PA

Which player do you think is better off... a player with next to nothing stats or a player with very high stats but with for e.g ca 100 and pa 140 but all his stats 18+

High do you manage to get 18+ for all stats with a 100 CA?

The question should be:

What do you go for, high CA/PA or performance i.e ST with 160 CA and 180 PA scores 10 in 40 v ST with 100 CA and 120 PA but scores 30 in 40?

No, the question should be, "what do you go for CA/PA or attributes?"

I don't know CA/PA so it has to be attributes.

Stats. You cannot check CA/PA without using an editor so it is time-saving just to compare stats. Also, CA/PA is completely subjective (e.g. Frank Lampard has a better CA than Gerrard yet I believe Gerrard is much better and Lampard is heavily overrated) and so Stats are a more reliable measure of ability.

CA and PA dont affect performance but attributes do- so attributes are more important.

Well I'm not totally clear on the question & it doesn't make that much sense as Menion has said.

CA is a measure of attributes but some points may be "wasted" in areas that aren't as important. This is especially true for utility players that play in more than one area of the field. The other main area that causes this type of discussion is how two-footed the player is as this also takes up a fair chunk of CA points.

Also as Elrithral points out we can't see CA/PA (Unless you mean scout/coach/AM stars) so I have to say attributes with consideration given to his position and two footedness.

I think the OP needs to reword the question, so people aren't confused between attributes and stats.

Personally I never use a real time editor, so judge players on their attributes and stats.

A player with a low CA would never have a lot of high attributes, so the comparison is not a good one.

What can really effect a players performance is attribute distribution. For example, you could have a player with average CA but who only has high values in attributes that are essential for their position (eg a defender who has high attribute values for tackling, marking, strength, jumping, concentration and very low values in things like finishing, long shots, corners, free kicks, etc) and you could have another defender who has a high CA but who has higher attributes that aren't as important for a defender. In this instance the first player can often make a better player than the second one.

So the real question is, what do you look for in a player, a high CA or high attributes for the position that the player plays in? For me it's the attributes every time.

I enjoyed considerable success on FM08 with a list of desirable attributes for each position and signing players that ticked the boxes, regardless of reputation etc. I played in the latter stages of the CL every year for 14 seasons and, when I eventually checked the players PA, the highest PA in my squad was 167. My best player had a PA of 142.

Attributes > CA/PA

I enjoyed considerable success on FM08 with a list of desirable attributes for each position and signing players that ticked the boxes, regardless of reputation etc. I played in the latter stages of the CL every year for 14 seasons and, when I eventually checked the players PA, the highest PA in my squad was 167. My best player had a PA of 142.

Attributes > CA/PA

I'm sure that would have been the case for me in older versions but with these new scout ratings I can't help but buy players who have high PA as I know they will become great.

Previously I would wet myself (not literally) if I had managed to sign a wonderkid. Now my team is completely made up of them and I'm even letting former wonderkids go for small prices as they are surplus to requirements.

I suppose my answer to the original question is I would go for PA. I like developing players, so signing a player with poor attributes but a high PA is a challenge for me and feels like I have really made that player who he is.

dafuge, I can definitely see the attraction of PA when it comes to developing players and building yourself a reputation (albeit in your own head ) as a manager who brings youngster through and turns them into world beaters. Do you think you have performed better because of it? I'm curious to see if people think they perform better with players who have high CA/PA or players with decent atts.

dafuge, I can definitely see the attraction of PA when it comes to developing players and building yourself a reputation (albeit in your own head ) as a manager who brings youngster through and turns them into world beaters. Do you think you have performed better because of it? I'm curious to see if people think they perform better with players who have high CA/PA or players with decent atts.

It always takes me longer to achieve success, but once I get there I can create a dominant team. I tend to sign players under 21, so when my signings start reaching their mid twenties I have a squad full of class players with great attributes in the right places who were not signed for huge prices.

I need to get through loads of seasons to achieve anything but it is worth it once I get there.

Key attributes are more important than CA. Fact. CA has no effect on the ME.

However,

CA is sum total of the attributes.

It's a very flawed question, because they are essentially the same thing. Perhaps in our head the weightings are different to those used by the game.

I judge a player by his attributes first then his stats (goals scored, avg rating etc.) to judge his consistency.

The biggest case here is ability to use weaker foot. I don't know why it affects ca that much, I always look for players with poor weaker foot and it is benefitial.

CA and PA are just an indicator of how good their attributes are. Attributes are far more important. But without good CA you don't get good attributes so meh

The biggest case here is ability to use weaker foot. I don't know why it affects ca that much, I always look for players with poor weaker foot and it is benefitial.

Whilst defensively it doesn't seem to help that much for attacking players is gives a significant advantage which is why it takes up a fair few CA points.

I go for stats over CA/PA

i go for a combination of stats and the amount of stars my scouts give the player.

sometimes a player has loads of high mental stats but my scout says hes a two star. i presume that this means his hidden stats are low, which means his overall ca/pa is quite low.

I think its pretty stupid to pick a player based on CA/PA alone. There are a few players on this game that have a pretty low CA but their stats are very good and that is how you should judge someone.

I base player signings, and first 11 on many things. First and foremost, key player attributes. There is no point having a player on the left wing with 20's in most areas, but pace, accel, dribbling and crossing at 5. [not always those extremes, but you get where I'm coming from] So I pick my players wisely. I then look at player traits [likes to get crowd going, likes to dive into tackles] - those kind of traits can have bigger impacts on the game than people realise. After that, personality. You can wager a guess at how consistent a player will play via his coach / scout reports. there are a few other minor things I look at, but yeah, I take into consideration a lot of things, so would just be able to choose between attributes and ability. [Not that I can see the PA/CA anyway ]

I think its pretty stupid to pick a player based on CA/PA alone. There are a few players on this game that have a pretty low CA but their stats are very good and that is how you should judge someone.

It works for me, but possibly because of the way I play.

I very rarely buy a player to go into the first team straight away, I look for players who are likely to make an impact in three or four years time. That way I can almost guarantee that my squad will always keep getting better and never worse.

Saying that though, I suppose I do a bit of both. If a player had too many key attributes that were too low to develop to a decent level then I wouldn't sign them.

I sign youngsters on PA (well what the scouts tell me the PA is - leading prem with 4+ stars normally), first teamers are signed on CA and attributes - scout report (CA) to find players and attributes to narrow down the targets (scout may say player is a leading prem, but if he's a defender with poor jumping he doesn't get signed unless the rest of his attributes are very high for example).

The younger the player the more I'll rely on PA in the hopes he improves.

Selecting my first XI is a combination of star rating (CA), attributes for position and his peformances (average rating, goals, assists etc... when he's played games) - I always find the occasional player with relatively poor attributes and CA but will play out of his skin getting good ratings or goals.

Heres an example of attributes verus CA.

On the left, Galli CA 183/184 --------- On the right Smith CA 163/179

Galli is two footed so takes up more CA, but coming down to his attributes Smith isn't that different and can still get better.

Heres an example of stats verus CA.

On the left, Galli CA 183/184 --------- On the right Smith CA 163/179

Galli is two footed so takes up more CA, but coming down to stats Smith isn't that different and can still get better.

Attributes vs CA, not stats vs CA.

Yeah my bad, but I think people get the idea.

Heres an example of attributes verus CA.

On the left, Galli CA 183/184 --------- On the right Smith CA 163/179

Galli is two footed so takes up more CA, but coming down to his attributes Smith isn't that different and can still get better.

This whole issue is confusing due to the impact of two-footedness. Direct comparisons of attribute vs attribute is very misleading. You have to take account into the weaker foot.

IMO, it's a flawed design by SI. They should have another column that shows the weaker foot technical attributes.

Attributes vs CA, not stats vs CA.

Although stats would probably be more relevant here. Forget attributes and CA, which one is playing better?

what they should do is get rid of that footedness bias that is a completly stupid idea why does being able to use both feet limit how good your attributes can get it doesnt work like that in real life so it shudnt work like that in the game. it allows players that shudnt develop so well to look like match winners.

what they should do is get rid of that footedness bias that is a completly stupid idea why does being able to use both feet limit how good your attributes can get it doesnt work like that in real life so it shudnt work like that in the game. it allows players that shudnt develop so well to look like match winners.

Urm well because the ability to use both feet is a significant advantage both in the game & RL especially for attacking players.

It is a little bit of a quirk in the game but one I think we'll have to put up with even when its better balanced.

but the advantage of it is played down for players that are good enough to use both feet because their technical/physical/mental abilities wont develop to the level that it should would they have been one footed so whether they can use both feet wont matter because they will look average (although it is not the case for all players im sure, but most i would think)

How good a player is comes down almost entirely to one attribute - the almost always overlooked consistency.

Urm well because the ability to use both feet is a significant advantage both in the game & RL especially for attacking players.

It is a little bit of a quirk in the game but one I think we'll have to put up with even when its better balanced.

But SI need to change it so it only affects certain attributes. A 2 footed player shouldn't be worse at freekicks for example. Or headers obviously. But since CA points get taken up it does seem to affect these other attributes.

How good a player is comes down almost entirely to one attribute - the almost always overlooked consistency.

I'd agree with that - and adaptability. But given you are not supposed to know these two attributes, lets disregard them for a moment.

In terms of the discussion - undoubtedly attributes are more important. You could have a player with PA 199 but beginning with 3's across the attribute board - he may develop into a 199 CA player but he'll still be useless without the stats.

But SI need to change it so it only affects certain attributes. A 2 footed player shouldn't be worse at freekicks for example. Or headers obviously. But since CA points get taken up it does seem to affect these other attributes.

But that isn't how it works! The two footed player will have a higher CA to begin with, not the other way around. Players aren't "penalised", they're "rewarded".

I'd agree with that - and adaptability. But given you are not supposed to know these two attributes, lets disregard them for a moment.

In terms of the discussion - undoubtedly attributes are more important. You could have a player with PA 199 but beginning with 3's across the attribute board - he may develop into a 199 CA player but he'll still be useless without the stats.

Once he's a CA 199 player, his attributes will be up at 15+ anyway...

A two-footed player is meant to be better at passing on average than a one-footed player, so why must a two-footed player with the same ability level (CA) have a lower passing attribute thanks to the weighting of weak-footedness?

Just as we do not use height + jumping = aerial reach (it's jumping = aerial reach), I do not believe we should use weak footedness + passing = true passing ability. I would prefer passing = true passing ability with the knowledge that if a one-footed player tries to pass with his weaker foot, you can expect it to go straight to the opposition even if passing over 5 yards.

I suggested that weak footedness, if it plays such a huge part in weighting a player, should be made separate so, for example, the player's value simply goes up if a player is two-footed without impacting their underlying attributes. So instead of simply using CA to rate a player, it would be CA + WFA = player rating but CA is used to weight the attributes by default, so one-footers and two-footers can have exactly the same attributes for the same CA.