What's more important? Attributes or Stars/CA?

This is something that has been confusing me for a long time.

Especially newgens tend to have unbalanced, or plain crappy, attributes, even for important areas.

Despite that, some of them do have a good CA/PA, and thus are held in high regard by my staff.

My question is: should I pick the 3*/4* player with average attributes or the 5* player with uneven attributes?

I mean: what's the point of playing a 150CA DC who's average at marking and heading and is physically weak (poor jumping, balance, pace etc), or a 155CA Striker who's below 10 in every single area but heading or finishing?

In the end are attributes more important than CA, or a 160CA player will still be better than a 110CA player, despite the in-game skills being in clear favour of the 110 one?

i would say take the 3-4*

i give more importance to the attributes than CA (i never check the CA-PA of players tho, a bit too easy playing like that )

PS: check also the hidden attributes your scouts tell (professionalism, important matches, etc...), that's also important to me

How they play > what their attributes are

Always attributes. Apart from not being able to see their CA in-game, CA isn't used in ME calculations, but attributes are.

Always attributes. Apart from not being able to see their CA in-game, CA isn't used in ME calculations, but attributes are.

Excuse me for being thick Neji.

But what are ME calculations:confused:

I also thought that you take players (over 18) current CA and then stats if the CA & PA are equal

personally i always think ca is what counts.

I have had loads of games where players with good atributes play badly, but players with very average attributes play much better and are generally rated better by my coaches as well.

He means mach engine calculations.

CA only decides how good the attributes are, CA does nothing on it's own. Thus, Attributes > CA.

A couple of things to consider though, are hidden attributes, like consistency and the ability to handle pressure

Attributes > CA,in my mind.

form > all

atm my worst striker (in attributes, stars) scores the most goals of all.

form > all

atm my worst striker (in attributes, stars) scores the most goals of all.

why do you think this is?

a 155CA Striker who's below 10 in every single area but heading or finishing?

If you can construct such a beast, I'd love to see him.

why do you think this is?

Because he's in good form and morale.

Yes I agree that form > all, and then attributes AND TWO-FOOTEDNESS

You're not meant to be able to see CA.

The scout-report stars can be useful for one thing - hinting at the hidden attributes.

If you think a player has great attributes but your scout doesn't think he's that special then it usually comes down to mediocre hidden stats, or one-footedness (which it's easy to forget to check) so stars are useful for that...

...but the AI doesn't understand what your goals are. Fabregas is better than Fletcher, but if I wanted someone to go box to box, close down everything and upset the opposition's rhythm, it wouldn't be Fabregas. Scouts/CA don't let you think in terms of tactics: attributes do.

Form's crucial too, but for the big games I often opt for the "form is temporary, class is permanent" school of thought - because no matter how in-form my reserve striker is, if my attack is struggling, he's never going to skin 5 players and score from 30yrds out of the blue: whereas there's always a chance that a world-class player will do something world-class.

player stars are just guidelines, can't really 100% trust them. for example ai managers and my own coaches never seem to rate van der vaart that much even though he ticks all the boxes attribute wise. i could always get him on the cheap and he's gets 20 assists a season for me and lords knows how many winning goals and equalisers against the tide. Footballer of the year twice in a row and my assistant still rates him as 3 stars in the team report even before i have any world class players in my team. When i was freshly promoted and i managed to sign him, he was by far the best player in the team by any measure (form/attribute/goals/assists/general play), but the ai just never view him as anything but average/good rather than key/world class.

whereas i had a 6 star potential 6 foot plus striker, after nurturing him for years he had all the pace strength and aerial ability in the world, 19/19 finishing/first touch, good composure, off the ball. Thing was his anticipation just never grew, it was straight out of the clearance bins and in the end he was just simply not a good goalscorer or target man.

Form is definately my first parameter for who I pick in my teams. I also tend to go for Attributes over the CA of a player cause I don't use Genie Scout to find players (therefore I'm unable to really check what a players CA really is) rather use my scouts to identify targets and I pick out the one's who I think are the best.

I must admit that if a player has all the correct attributes but a CA/PA of 150/150 and there is a player who has random un-even and un-important stats but has a CA/PA of 200/200 I would take the lower rated player because he has the stat's I'm looking for.

From what I can gather (which isn't very much!!!) I think it has to be a combination of the two.

Because CA stars show the "hidden" attributes for a player so if two wingers have 4* for CA then I will then check the attributes for both and put the one with "better" attributes in that position.

You're not meant to be able to see CA.

The scout-report stars can be useful for one thing - hinting at the hidden attributes.

If you think a player has great attributes but your scout doesn't think he's that special then it usually comes down to mediocre hidden stats, or one-footedness (which it's easy to forget to check) so stars are useful for that....

Agreed on footedness - the difference in attributes can be really noticable even between a player with 'fairly weak' and 'fairly strong'. There's also the odd occassion where players with lots of natural/competent positions can have attributes which make them look better than their CA.

With regard hidden attributes though, I'm pretty sure most of them are unweighted (i.e., they don't count towards CA). So two players with identical attributes, weak foot and positions could have the same CA but completely different professionalism, determination, consistency, ambition, etc.

Agreed on footedness - the difference in attributes can be really noticable even between a player with 'fairly weak' and 'fairly strong'. There's also the odd occassion where players with lots of natural/competent positions can have attributes which make them look better than their CA.

With regard hidden attributes though, I'm pretty sure most of them are unweighted (i.e., they don't count towards CA). So two players with identical attributes, weak foot and positions could have the same CA but completely different professionalism, determination, consistency, ambition, etc.

I always thought that CA is a comparison between players in your squad (which includes the Hidden Attributes) so if player A has 3* & player B has 4* then player B would logically be the better squad player or am I reading this wrong?

CA = current ability, a score out of 200 which is a hidden variable.

The stars, as far as I know, are your assistant's 'estimate' of the CA (so the accuracy can depend on the staff attributes and the player's reputation), but scaled depending on your season's expectation, club reputation or something along those lines (I don't think it's necessarily compared to other players because if you sold off all your best players, I doubt the remaining players would suddenly have higher star ratings). So a 7* player for Chelsea (expected to win the title) will be better than a 7* player for Hull (expected to fight against relegation).

Either way, it's my understanding that certain attributes (determination, aggression, flair, professionalism, ambition, injury proneness, consistency, etc.) are not taken in to account when calculating the CA. So in that sense, a star rating will tell you nothing about some of the hidden stats a player might have.

CA = current ability, a score out of 200 which is a hidden variable.

The stars, as far as I know, are your assistant's 'estimate' of the CA (so the accuracy can depend on the staff attributes and the player's reputation), but scaled depending on your season's expectation, club reputation or something along those lines (I don't think it's necessarily compared to other players because if you sold off all your best players, I doubt the remaining players would suddenly have higher star ratings). So a 7* player for Chelsea (expected to win the title) will be better than a 7* player for Hull (expected to fight against relegation).

Either way, it's my understanding that certain attributes (determination, aggression, flair, professionalism, ambition, injury proneness, consistency, etc.) are not taken in to account when calculating the CA. So in that sense, a star rating will tell you nothing about some of the hidden stats a player might have.

Thanks for clearing that up for me:thup:

Personality attributes (Determination, Professionalism, Controversy etc.) as well as stuff like Injury Proneness and Consistency aren't factored into a player's CA.

Thanks for confirming, AB.

So effectively, everything that contributes in some way to CA (and therefore star-ratings) is visible through non-hidden attributes, weaker foot ability and positions

Sometimes players may look poor or average attribute wise but they might be relatively two footed and this results in their attributes appearing lower. However they ahve the ability to sue both feet so in-game they are likely to be very effective.

Players like Monzon and Vargas (both LB's) both have fantastic attributes but they are very one-footed. If they were two footed their attributes would decrease.

In answer to the question. The CA is just a number, it's the players actual attributes specific to his position that make the difference in the game engine. For example you could have a regen striker who's CA was 170 but his attributes weren't balanced out or suited to a striker. His CA might be the highest on your team but it's unlikely you're going to play him if he has poor finishing/composure etc...

Stars are also relative to your club and club's reputation. I'm currently QPR manager and most players are 6 or 7 stars, but if they were to be sold somewhere like Man City they would only probably be 3 star at best.

Sometimes players may look poor or average attribute wise but they might be relatively two footed and this results in their attributes appearing lower. However they ahve the ability to sue both feet so in-game they are likely to be very effective.

Players like Monzon and Vargas (both LB's) both have fantastic attributes but they are very one-footed. If they were two footed their attributes would decrease.

In answer to the question. The CA is just a number, it's the players actual attributes specific to his position that make the difference in the game engine. For example you could have a regen striker who's CA was 170 but his attributes weren't balanced out or suited to a striker. His CA might be the highest on your team but it's unlikely you're going to play him if he has poor finishing/composure etc...

Stars are also relative to your club and club's reputation. I'm currently QPR manager and most players are 6 or 7 stars, but if they were to be sold somewhere like Man City they would only probably be 3 star at best.

Good point! But can I give you an example of how CA stars are totally silly.

There is Stephen Appiah available on a free transfer at the start of FM2009 who plays as a MC and wants 8k a week with 6 or 7 stars.

Now I am playing as Leeds United and my best MC'd is Andy Hughes whose stats are far better than Appiah but is only rated as 3 stars:( The CA doesn't really make sense

Good point! But can I give you an example of how CA stars are totally silly.

There is Stephen Appiah available on a free transfer at the start of FM2009 who plays as a MC and wants 8k a week with 6 or 7 stars.

Now I am playing as Leeds United and my best MC'd is Andy Hughes whose stats are far better than Appiah but is only rated as 3 stars:( The CA doesn't really make sense

There'll be a reason for it.

Check Appiah's footedness (from the positions tab). Otherwise he may just have better attributes that are counted as most important for his position - pace and acceleration are always highly weighted, but other things like passing, strength, decisions, creativity, first touch, etc will be more highly weighted for MCs, for instance.

It could be just be that you have a useless scout/assistant, but I doubt the difference would be that big. Essentially, Appiah probably has a higher CA than Hughes, for some reason or another.

The ME only looks at attributes in its calculations.

CA is only the indication of how good a player is in theory. If in practice he's a striker who can't shoot or a defender with no positioning, their incredible crossing stat will not save him from underperforming. A player with a higher CA (more stars) will always be the overall better player. Yet, if the attributes are unbalanced and/or have serious weaknesses in important parts, indeed the weaker player might perform better and be your choice.

I'd decide on a trial-and-error basis if that happened to me.

hth

The ME only looks at attributes in its calculations.

CA is only the indication of how good a player is in theory. If in practice he's a striker who can't shoot or a defender with no positioning, their incredible crossing stat will not save him from underperforming. A player with a higher CA (more stars) will always be the overall better player. Yet, if the attributes are unbalanced and/or have serious weaknesses in important parts, indeed the weaker player might perform better and be your choice.

I'd decide on a trial-and-error basis if that happened to me.

hth

Cheers that helps but I now tend to ignore the CA and only play with stats as they seem more trusting.

I use CA as a guide (I don't use Genie Scout) for players coming in>then check stats, thats how I picked up on the situation between the 2 MC's:)

The stars/CA essentially define the limits of a player. Attributes define his current theoretical ability at performing actions ingame, and Personality Attributes define his overall behaviour and performance as a player.

A small example of how this all works would be this:

You have an 18 year old CB with 6-7 Star PA or 190 to 200 PA. This guy has the potential to be one of the best in the game.

He is currently rated at 2-3 Star CA or has around 130 CA if you are a top club side like Milan. He does not look particularly good from his current ability stars.

However he has the Attributes Anticipation, Concentration, Decisions, Positioning, Teamwork at 15. Strength, Jumping at 17 and Tackling at 14. This guy is about third choice CB level for a good Premier League side. He might only have Passing at 7, Acceleration at 9-10 etc. but he has solid key attributes for defending around the box.

So your first choice CB gets injured and he is brought into the team for the next match. Unfortunately you are playing against a Striker with Anticipation, Off-The-Ball of 17, Acceleration, Pace, Dribbling of 16. It is quite likely that if your guy is one on one with this guy he will be skinned by movement or skill.

So you set your team up to cover your weakspot but the opponent gets one-on-one with your Defender. This is where Personality kicks in. Is he Aggressive? If yes then it is likely he will go for the tackle, if not then he may very well back off.

If your guy goes in for the tackle, and predictably gets skinned, there are two things that will happen next. Either the opponent will get around your defender or your defender will hack him down for a free-kick and a yellow card minimum. That depends entireally on whether he has high or low Dirtiness attribute, something you can only see ingame by watching the event take place and watching your player play football.

A dirty player will almost never let a player go past him into a dangerous area, unless he is totally destroyed by pace and skill and cannot even hack the other boy down.

Basically there is no single guide to anything. Attributes do not explain personality and CA/Stars do not explain either of those. CA/Stars measure CA/PA according to your club standards and represent only a rough guide to a players development and potential. Attributes explain plenty about a players ability in certain actions and moves but they do not explain HOW your guy plays, what his personal style is or whether he is Consistent and Professional. Personality is one of the most important factors in a players performance and it can only be guessed at with some strong hints from Determination, Flair etc. Attributes can be easilly seen but tell you nothing about how the guy really plays as an individual.

So, that's a "no comment" then?

I wonder if the AI managers actually take any notice of personality attributes, at all?

They seem generally fixated on CA (and reputation to an extent), so my guess is that they'd see no difference between two players with exactly the same weighted attributes, but where one had all 20s for professionalism, determination, consistency, etc., and the other had all 1s.

I'd like to think I'm wrong, though.

I doubt you're wrong, but then again how much weight to rl managers lend to player personality? Imo most managers are egotistical enough to reckon they can cope with the player, regardless of personality.

Only attributes are calculated in ME.

But I have to tell you something. While player with CA of 110 can be better than player with CA of 130, because of better attributes distribution, a player with CA of 160 will always be better than one with 110. Even if distribution of attributes of 160 CA player is bad, you can reshape him very quickly to be better.

The stars/CA essentially define the limits of a player. Attributes define his current theoretical ability at performing actions ingame, and Personality Attributes define his overall behaviour and performance as a player.

A small example of how this all works would be this:

You have an 18 year old CB with 6-7 Star PA or 190 to 200 PA. This guy has the potential to be one of the best in the game.

He is currently rated at 2-3 Star CA or has around 130 CA if you are a top club side like Milan. He does not look particularly good from his current ability stars.

However he has the Attributes Anticipation, Concentration, Decisions, Positioning, Teamwork at 15. Strength, Jumping at 17 and Tackling at 14. This guy is about third choice CB level for a good Premier League side. He might only have Passing at 7, Acceleration at 9-10 etc. but he has solid key attributes for defending around the box.

So your first choice CB gets injured and he is brought into the team for the next match. Unfortunately you are playing against a Striker with Anticipation, Off-The-Ball of 17, Acceleration, Pace, Dribbling of 16. It is quite likely that if your guy is one on one with this guy he will be skinned by movement or skill.

So you set your team up to cover your weakspot but the opponent gets one-on-one with your Defender. This is where Personality kicks in. Is he Aggressive? If yes then it is likely he will go for the tackle, if not then he may very well back off.

If your guy goes in for the tackle, and predictably gets skinned, there are two things that will happen next. Either the opponent will get around your defender or your defender will hack him down for a free-kick and a yellow card minimum. That depends entireally on whether he has high or low Dirtiness attribute, something you can only see ingame by watching the event take place and watching your player play football.

A dirty player will almost never let a player go past him into a dangerous area, unless he is totally destroyed by pace and skill and cannot even hack the other boy down.

Basically there is no single guide to anything. Attributes do not explain personality and CA/Stars do not explain either of those. CA/Stars measure CA/PA according to your club standards and represent only a rough guide to a players development and potential. Attributes explain plenty about a players ability in certain actions and moves but they do not explain HOW your guy plays, what his personal style is or whether he is Consistent and Professional. Personality is one of the most important factors in a players performance and it can only be guessed at with some strong hints from Determination, Flair etc. Attributes can be easilly seen but tell you nothing about how the guy really plays as an individual.

So, all you can do as a "noob" is go out & shoot yourself then.

I understand that CA is relevant to the player & team, but is it really that much trial & error to get a "good" squad?

There is so many opinions on each subject that there is not one clear format to go down!!!!

I understand that CA is relevant to the player & team, but is it really that much trial & error to get a "good" squad?

If you sign a player with 20 crossing, dribbling and pace, he will be a good winger, regardless of CA. A better CA means he might be a better all round player, but their are advantages to CA, PA and attributes.

I don't see the big deal tbh, it's not exactly difficult to build a team with a nice blend of CA and attributes, there is no necessity for a CA rich team.

Sort of on topic question..

if you have two players with identical stats, one is both footed, the other is one foot only, is the both footed better at passing,shooting etc. as his stats would suggest he is exactly as good as the other player. As i think the 2 footed one would have a higher cA too?

If you sign a player with 20 crossing, dribbling and pace, he will be a good winger, regardless of CA. A better CA means he might be a better all round player, but their are advantages to CA, PA and attributes.

I don't see the big deal tbh, it's not exactly difficult to build a team with a nice blend of CA and attributes, there is no necessity for a CA rich team.

So really it should be a combination of the two me thinks:confused:

Yes, it can be a combination of the two. I only sign players based on attributes, of course that means that I sometimes pick up the odd high CA, but it also means I have the odd player with low CA who does just as good a job. To put it in perspective, my star player in my Roma side of 2017 had a CA of 134, my 198 CM spent a majority of his career with me on the bench and I made 4 CL finals in 3 seasons.

Good point! But can I give you an example of how CA stars are totally silly.

There is Stephen Appiah available on a free transfer at the start of FM2009 who plays as a MC and wants 8k a week with 6 or 7 stars.

Now I am playing as Leeds United and my best MC'd is Andy Hughes whose stats are far better than Appiah but is only rated as 3 stars:( The CA doesn't really make sense

There'll be a reason for it.

Essentially, Appiah probably has a higher CA than Hughes, for some reason or another.

I think I've solved it! One of them is Michael Essien's midfield partner, the other one makes Stephen Hunt seem good.

So really it should be a combination of the two me thinks:confused:

It depends what sort of player you want. If you want a "pure" player or an all rounder. I could probably find several players after a few years who are better "pure" wingers than Messi (as Elrithal says, higher in pace, accel, crossing and dribbling). As I use pure wingers, they'd be better for me than Messi. But for someone else, Messi would be better because his all round attributes are higher.

CA should never be used by a human IMO. It's supposed to be interpretated by a machine. For a human, it is next to useless unless they really know what their doing (they're a coder or a researcher). Always look at attributes. CA may tell you that Jimmy McBob is better at tackling that Bobby McJim, but they're both strikers, so it really doesn't matter...

Obviously it is attributes and actual match ratings which should matter. CA and PA are hidden values; if they were designed to be used by us then SI would make them visible. I think users who use tools to view CAs are killing the fun of their game. It feels much better when you scout a player and make a guess about his CA and PA and eventually realise that he actually is what you want him to be. This gives an excellent reward feeling which can not be compared to using tools to preview those numbers in advance. Of course we sometimes fail and our golden boys turn out to be rubbish but that is how it goes in real life.

This is a good question,,,as i wanted to know something similar,,,,,,,ive got 2 strikers for one position in the premiership, the first striker has high attributes for a striker 16-18, but all coach reports say he is a good championship player,,,,the second striker has low to medium attributes for a stiker 11-14 yet the coach reports say he is a leading premiership player,,,,should i go with my instincts and choose the higher atribute striker or listen to the coaches and go with the leading premiership player?

It depends how good the coaches are.

Do you fully trust them?

Should you trust coach reports or your "gut" instinct:p

Because in my opinion using just "stats" does not work

It depends how good the coaches are.

Do you fully trust them?

Should you trust coach reports or your "gut" instinct:p

Because in my opinion using just "stats" does not work

Again, I beg to differ. In 08 and 09 I have completely ignored coach/scout reports and never used FMRTE or FMM (unless experimenting), I base every signing on attributes and attributes only. In that time i've won the Dutch league, the EPL, the German league, the Brazilian league, the CL 3 times, Serie A 3 times and countless cup competitions.

It depends on the manager, but all three approaches work.

The hidden CA/PA rating is the worst thing about Footman, and has been going back to the days of Champ Man. It's ridiculous. You should be able to tell how good a player is from his visible abilities, once you've scouted him or seen him play. There should never be some hidden value that says "oh actually he's this good/bad but you have no way of knowing that".

Having a value that indicates how much room for improvement there is is fine, but why not just give that player a potential maximum in each attribute?

Again, I beg to differ. In 08 and 09 I have completely ignored coach/scout reports and never used FMRTE or FMM (unless experimenting), I base every signing on attributes and attributes only. In that time i've won the Dutch league, the EPL, the German league, the Brazilian league, the CL 3 times, Serie A 3 times and countless cup competitions.

It depends on the manager, but all three approaches work.

I am pleased to see that that system works for you, but as you can see in my previous post when I used stats comparing Hughes with Appiah (both MC'd) if I just take the "basic" stats of Tackling, Strength, Aggression, Marking, Stamina, Workrate, & Teamwork and compare them against each other then Hughes will come out on top!

But if I use "other" stats that are comparible for that position such as Pace, Passing, Acceleration, Determination, Concentration & Creativity then Appiah comes out on top because overall he is the better player.

The hidden CA/PA rating is the worst thing about Footman, and has been going back to the days of Champ Man. It's ridiculous. You should be able to tell how good a player is from his visible abilities, once you've scouted him or seen him play. There should never be some hidden value that says "oh actually he's this good/bad but you have no way of knowing that".

Having a value that indicates how much room for improvement there is is fine, but why not just give that player a potential maximum in each attribute?

Everything that goes in to the CA calculation is visible through attributes, footedness, etc, which you can see when you scout or watch a player, as you say.

CA and PA are useful from a research point of view, because they allow for a simple comparison between players at each level, and make it easier to check that certain players aren't being over-rated. Having a maximum for each attribute would be a research headache, so PA does that job and attributes develop according to a player's position and the training schedule, which allows for more flexibility.

My only problem with PA is that it's perhaps a little too easy to read with scout or coach reports. I think it probably needs to be in place, but I'd prefer if the AI (as most humans might if they had nothing else to go on) just tried to guess a player's potential on the basis of his current level of ability, his age and his personality.

I am pleased to see that that system works for you, but as you can see in my previous post when I used stats comparing Hughes with Appiah (both MC'd) if I just take the "basic" stats of Tackling, Strength, Aggression, Marking, Stamina, Workrate, & Teamwork and compare them against each other then Hughes will come out on top!

But if I use "other" stats that are comparible for that position such as Pace, Passing, Acceleration, Determination, Concentration & Creativity then Appiah comes out on top because overall he is the better player.

Sure, this is why individual attributes are much more important - if you're trying to find a player to do a specific role within your own tactical setup, then you'll be better off going for a player who specialises in certain areas (at the expense of others).

Everything that goes in to the CA calculation is visible through attributes, footedness, etc, which you can see when you scout or watch a player, as you say.

CA and PA are useful from a research point of view, because they allow for a simple comparison between players at each level, and make it easier to check that certain players aren't being over-rated. Having a maximum for each attribute would be a research headache, so PA does that job and attributes develop according to a player's position and the training schedule, which allows for more flexibility.

My only problem with PA is that it's perhaps a little too easy to read with scout or coach reports. I think it probably needs to be in place, but I'd prefer if the AI (as most humans might if they had nothing else to go on) just tried to guess a player's potential on the basis of his current level of ability, his age and his personality.

I actually agree with you on that but people can then get to bogged down with putting to much emphasis on CA/PA (as I did) and destroy the team:D

So, all you can do as a "noob" is go out & shoot yourself then.

I understand that CA is relevant to the player & team, but is it really that much trial & error to get a "good" squad?

There is so many opinions on each subject that there is not one clear format to go down!!!!

I take a different approach depending on the situation I'm in.

When it comes to signing players the first thing I look at is their stars rating given to them by my scouts, in young players the potential of course.

Then my second look is at the attributes. How are the players in the key areas for their positions and in areas which are important due to the role I intend to give to a certain position in my tactics? Older players need to be where I want my signing to be already, while in younger players I look if they have any serious weaknesses in important attributes which are unlikely to be ironed out until they reach their prime. Thus even if a DC has a 7 star potential, I'm not going to sign him for a first division team if at 17 his jumping is only 7 or 8. But keep in mind, young players can be retrained to a new position quickly. So if I think that guy would be a good DR (who doesn't need top jumping) then I might still sign him.

In signing players there should not be much trial-and-error. My judgment should be good enough to not sign big flops.

The thing is different when it comes to picking my team.

There I don't care at all about stars ratings (the only exception being great talents sometimes being given playing time to aid their development although they are not good enough yet for a real first team spot), there all I look at is attributes as only they determine the ability of a player in the respective aspects. Of course there are also hidden attributes which I don't see.

From there, it's trial and error. I play around during the pre-season friendlies and then pick a team of which I think it's the best I have, but watching the season commence some players might not perform as expected while then others which I thought were worse actually perform better. In the end obviously those will be in my first XI which perform best (as a team, but indivdual performance ususally equals better team performance in FM).

There is Stephen Appiah available on a free transfer at the start of FM2009 who plays as a MC and wants 8k a week with 6 or 7 stars.

Now I am playing as Leeds United and my best MC'd is Andy Hughes whose stats are far better than Appiah but is only rated as 3 stars:( The CA doesn't really make sense

One issue with FM09 is that versatile players have better attributes in comparison with one-position-only players. I guess this will be sorted/improved for FM10.

For more information and top explanation there is a thread titled "Found something amazing!! Must see!!!"

hth