Buddy Franklin Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Hi there, Just wondering how you all perceive the scouts reports in regards to how you rate the player. For example, would a useful player be better than a decent one and what about a fairly useful player as well. Would your of perceived quality go something like this? 1 - Definite purchase 2 - Quality Signing 3 - Would be considered an important player if you signed him 4 - Good Signing 5 - Fairly Useful Player 6 - Useful Player 7 - Decent Player and the others behind this, obviously you wouldn't consider past this line! What do think yourselves? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2goody Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I'd put useful over fairly useful but I could be putting that the wrong way round. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Franklin Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 Yeah maybe, Also have seen fairly good player as well. Any others out there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hershie Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 "No-Brainer" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Smith Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 'Must do all you can to sign' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hershie Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 "Only if you're desperate" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Franklin Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 What order would you have them then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
antg1985 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Is there an official guide to these anywhere? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayahr Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 0 - sign at any cost Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coen Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 "Would be considered an important player" should be ranked higher than "quality signing" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 "Would be considered an important player" should be ranked higher than "quality signing" Count the stars... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomer Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 My assistant manager likes to say that "we could do a lot worse than signing [player]". I don't really know where to rank it. I think he means three stars. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrazT Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I rate my scout reports and short list on the stars and rarely look at any player below 3 stars ( good signing ) unless it is a promising youngster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robzilla Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Count the stars... Exactly, each description corresponds with a number of stars, so.... 3.5 = quality 3 = good 2.5 = fairly good 2 = useful 1.5 = decent 1 = last resort 0.5 = not worthwhile I dont know about the ones above that, I haven't found any yet! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coen Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Count the stars... I do count the stars, and on my scout reports it reads: 5 stars = sign whatever the price 4.5 stars = definite purchase 4 stars = important player for the team 3.5 stars = quality signing 3 stars = good signing. So "Would be considered an important player for the team" is ranked higher than "quality signing". As a newly promoted premier league side my team at the moment is relatively rubbish, so I do get a lot of scout reports with 3.5 -5 stars as these players would be significantly better than my current players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batsnumbereleven Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Related dumb question: Are the star ratings relative to the players currently in your squad, or are they relative to the general strength of players in that division? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hershie Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Related dumb question:Are the star ratings relative to the players currently in your squad, or are they relative to the general strength of players in that division? A mixture I believe - relative to the level expected of players in your division and with your seasonal expectations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robzilla Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 So "Would be considered an important player for the team" is ranked higher than "quality signing". Yes it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.