A New post about PA/CA

Hi All,

Second post about training / PA,

You know what i was thinking why doesen't the PA be picked from the players ability.

I think that if the player has determination of 20 and work rate of 20 that player could become world class.

As i don't think that it should be as hidden as it is.

As if say a united sout went out seen a 16 year old, He was really determined and worked really hard. And allready was good they sign him stright away. As they can see he work hard and he determined to be the best.

I think player CA should impact the PA more then random numbers on player.

Training does annoy me at time as some time you can get a 21 year old who really top quilty but when it comes down to it they never improve much, and 21 would be the best age to improve. But due to the PA there no much further they can go.

Regards

Squashman

Thanks for you input, Might be a rubbish post to you might be good to someone else.

So why you need to be so rude does it make you feel good?

Regards

Sqashman

Not many 21 year olds become world class if they aren't getting there by that age already.

And you're talking as if the PA is a number we are supposed to see. CA does impact the actual PA a player can reach

e.g. a player with CA 20 but PA 200, won't reach anywhere near 200 if he's 22 years old.

If you mean PA should have no top level, what about players like Danny Murphy: players that have been premier league quality since a very early age and with the right mentality, but he's never going to be world class just because he had a decent CA at a young age.

Nature vs Nurture, we meet again I've had this argument many times on this forum so I'm not going to get into it but what I will say is I agree with this

I think player CA should impact the PA more then random numbers on player.

but not in the way you describe it. I think scouts should judge potential the same way it is judged in real life, namely that there is an inherent assumption that a 14/15 year old can improve so usually how good a player is relative to his peers has an impact on expectations. So to me PA should be removed from scout judgement altogether and it should be based on CA relative to their age. I am ignoring the real life concept of training academies whereby coaches deal with youngsters for many years and use that as a judgement of their potential based on incremental improvement, and focusing on scouts.

I don't think any scout could watch a player play, see that he is not as good as his peers (CA) but magically predict that he will turn out to be better than his peers. Unless he picks up on particular attributes and assumes the possibility of improving others e.g. more possible to improve technique than pace so a scout might recommend a pacy full back who could learn better positioning rather than a slow full back who already has decent positional sense, but that's another argument/level of sophistication beyond the basic argument that PA should be removed from scout judgement altogether.

Hi CelebrityKiller,

Yer i do understand that but i still think that they still should have quite bigger improvements personally.

if you play them every match or a lot they should improve more than they do for me a think.

over a year i only get around 5+ spread throught each abilty if that.

Regards

Squashman

So following that logic, if I worked realy, really hard I could be better than Ronaldo?

PA is hidden because that is how good they could be, it is their peak. Everyone has a peak, I have a peak, you have a peak. It is the level a player can reach if every thing is pretty much perfect. The training facilities and coaches they have access to, the level they're playing at(and learning from) and luck with injuries.

You on the right idea i am on.

I think what you say is right about where they best will improve so say the scout can see they will improve more on pace, then i think the determination and work rate tell the game how quick they do improve on there abilty.

I just think the PA is to random so no matter how much work you do looking for the talent it mean you will never find it. It more down to you just being luckey rather then you been good at finding talent on the game.

Regards

Squashman

This 'Regards Squashman' needs to stop, it's irritating and someone got told of for doing much the same thing a while back.

On topic, I personally think that people sometimes get to hung up on PA/CA. Just because a player has a higher CA/PA than another, it doesn't mean they will perform to a higher standard. In fact, I have had numerous 'inferior' players that I couldn't drop as they were outshining the so called better players.

Hi CelebrityKiller,

Yer i do understand that but i still think that they still should have quite bigger improvements personally.

if you play them every match or a lot they should improve more than they do for me a think.

over a year i only get around 5+ spread throught each abilty if that.

Regards

Squashman

Depends, I've edited my earlier post so reread my comments citing someone like Danny Murphy as an example.

Hi Damienroden,

I understand what your saying, But if you got say a 16year old that allready good and he works really hard and is really determined he will become world class, With the acception right coaches so on.

The best players in the world are/was the more determined player who would try in there back garden train when coaching put the effort in more.

I know everyone does have a peak but if there allready good at 16 say 10 for passing and they work really hard and had loads dertermination to become good, it go to 18.

If at 16 you had a player at 5 worked hard really determined say they get to 12. If you had one who was lazeyer and started on 10 then they only got to 15.

If they made it in this sort of way there CA would impact there potensional rather than random numbers.

Regards

Squashman

So following that logic, if I worked realy, really hard I could be better than Ronaldo?

PA is hidden because that is how good they could be, it is their peak. Everyone has a peak, I have a peak, you have a peak. It is the level a player can reach if every thing is pretty much perfect. The training facilities and coaches they have access to, the level they're playing at(and learning from) and luck with injuries.

Hi Damienroden,

I understand what your saying, But if you got say a 16year old that allready good and he works really hard and is really determined he will become world class, With the acception right coaches so on.

The best players in the world are/was the more determined player who would try in there back garden train when coaching put the effort in more.

I know everyone does have a peak but if there allready good at 16 say 10 for passing and they work really hard and had loads dertermination to become good, it go to 18.

If at 16 you had a player at 5 worked hard really determined say they get to 12. If you had one who was lazeyer and started on 10 then they only got to 15.

If they made it in this sort of way there CA would impact there potensional rather than random numbers.

Regards

Squashman

Just to add to this bit of the post,

I also thin say for 16 - 21 they can only gain 6 points on so many thing depending on there postion if they say have 20 work rate. If they had 18 work rate they can gain 4 say they had 10 work rate they only game 2 on each thing.

I personally think this make the training aspect much much more fun.

Regards

Squashman

Hi All,

Second post about training / PA,

You know what i was thinking why doesen't the PA be picked from the players ability.

I think that if the player has determination of 20 and work rate of 20 that player could become world class.

As i don't think that it should be as hidden as it is.

As if say a united sout went out seen a 16 year old, He was really determined and worked really hard. And allready was good they sign him stright away. As they can see he work hard and he determined to be the best.

I think player CA should impact the PA more then random numbers on player.

Training does annoy me at time as some time you can get a 21 year old who really top quilty but when it comes down to it they never improve much, and 21 would be the best age to improve. But due to the PA there no much further they can go.

Regards

Squashman

Using your logic if I am determined and work really hard I could be the best footballer ever. This is simply not the case. Potential is set from conception in the womb. To be the worlds best player you need a combination of nature and nurture. It doesn't work with only one of them.

You can reach your potential or fall short. It is impossible to exceed your potential.

The term "exceed your potential" is an oxymoron and shows a lack of understanding of what the word potential means.

I think you're mistunderstanding what PA is, they have been given that number, and then level of traning and things like work rate and determination decide whether a player ever reaches their potential, there isn't any need to add more points.

I'll give you two examples

Player A has a potential of 160, but because he is quite lazy and starts at a low level club with quite bad facilities and coaches, he only ever reaches 90

Player B has a pontential of 120, obviously not very good, but he is a hard worker and is lucky enough t start at a big club with good facilities and coaches, so reaches 110.

Overall, Player B is actually a better player than A, even though player A originally had a higher PA.

Using your logic if I am determined and work really hard I could be the best footballer ever. This is simply not the case. Potential is set from conception in the womb.

You can reach your potential or fall short. It is impossible to exceed your potential.

The term "exceed your potential" is an oxymoron and shows a lack of understanding of what the word potential means.

Yep, You right in a case and then you can look it really good player reach there potential at 21 then that it only tiny tiny tiny improvements.

Which is not the case as well.

but in a game factor we need it so potential in a lot lot higher as if you get at 16 year old that is good whats point. You know the game has got restrictions on the abilty.

End day its about luck then the game is just luck so any one that has got decent youth player were just luckey. Instead of it being about which coaches you have how good you training facitly are.

It doesen't effect the fact that the player has a restricted PA which is random.

Regards

Squashman

I'm determined, I very rarely give up on things but that didn't enable me to make the step up from Zamaretto Premier level to say, Blue Square level. Why? Well depsite me playing football and practising an awful lot (and I mean a lot) I just never had the ability to make the step up. By your logic, I have put the hours in, used some of the best training facilities available at that level and worked with some good coaches (Steve Ogrizovic is one) then I should have been able to exceed my level and carry on my career at a higher level as I would have improved so much.

I think you're mistunderstanding what PA is, they have been given that number, and then level of traning and things like work rate and determination decide whether a player ever reaches their potential, there isn't any need to add more points.

I'll give you two examples

Player A has a potential of 160, but because he is quite lazy and starts at a low level club with quite bad facilities and coaches, he only ever reaches 90

Player B has a pontential of 120, obviously not very good, but he is a hard worker and is lucky enough t start at a big club with good facilities and coaches, so reaches 110.

Overall, Player B is actually a better player than A, even though player A originally had a higher PA.

Hi,

Yes i argree with the but the issue is say you got a 16 year old he pa is 120 you get he he lookes amazing you got all the best coaches his CA allready as 100 just say. But 20 he makes 113 CA

you get player B at 16 his PA is 180 but his ca is only 25 at the time. Your never gotta be able to see this if CA makes no differance to PA.

Which in turn mean the games about luck.

See the side i am getting at. I understand factors as you put makes they worse or better which i understand that but haveing random PA mean you never be able to see if he will or wont there no like thing saying he buy this player try train him to PA.

You could buy the worst player in games and his PA would be 200 which mean its about luck.

Regards

Squashman

On the post about football training.

My first game is squash, I play at hight leavel for my age, I play 3rd division squash mens league i win a good 80% a year at 1.

I know for a fact i could been near to the pro leavel or even top pro if i had the right training and i put the effort in. I think i got to the best i could because it was the best the coach could teach me.

If you put all the hours in and have the right coaches you will get to the top. That also if you have a natrual tallent for any game (which is CA)

Right look at tennis, Look at the 2 williams sisters what have they got in common, must have a good coach (same one) must have put the hours in.

SO think about it they both had the right breaks as in great coachs and great faciltys they both made it to the top.

Do you just think it is all because they both had a PA for that leavel. No it was because they had the right training and were good at a young age.

I think you didn't make it at football maybe becuase you didnt work enought hours did you run the streets every night did you train everyday.

There are the hours it takes to become top top players.

When there player were 14 they would bee kicking a ball doing keep me up training running weights the lot.

Regards

Squashman

On the post about football training.

My first game is squash, I play at hight leavel for my age, I play 3rd division squash mens league i win a good 80% a year at 1.

I know for a fact i could been near to the pro leavel or even top pro if i had the right training and i put the effort in. I think i got to the best i could because it was the best the coach could teach me.

If you put all the hours in and have the right coaches you will get to the top. That also if you have a natrual tallent for any game (which is CA)

Right look at tennis, Look at the 2 williams sisters what have they got in common, must have a good coach (same one) must have put the hours in.

SO think about it they both had the right breaks as in great coachs and great faciltys they both made it to the top.

Do you just think it is all because they both had a PA for that leavel. No it was because they had the right training and were good at a young age.

I think you didn't make it at football maybe becuase you didnt work enought hours did you run the streets every night did you train everyday.

There are the hours it takes to become top top players.

When there player were 14 they would bee kicking a ball doing keep me up training running weights the lot.

Regards

Squashman

Of course I put in the hours. I have played football for the county through school, local Sunday league then eventually my local league team. I trained every day, kept myself in good shape etc etc but unforunately depsite all that I hit my potential which was obviously no higher that what I was playing at irrespective of the coaching, facilities, time and effort I put in.

In FM terms, I guess I had a low PA which I reached and couldn't get past on a regular basis. Obviously with your squash, you have a high PA as you say you are rather good at it but if you could have reached the top then what stopped you? Determination or potential?

I think that in honesty, we should be paying more attention to PA than CA. This is because the PA is a vital stat, it really determines a players future ability however the CA could be overlooked, whilst not impacting so heavily on your game.

CA is one of the only ways of judging a plyer for yourself, of course it is important.

What stoped me in end is the amount of work it took.

I in 2 years improved loads and loads but the amount of effort was just to hight to keep doing it for me.

I think to be a pro you have to be quite selfish in a way, As nothing and i mean nothing can get in the way.

No food, No tv, No social life, No mate. The best players its all about the game the sport the training.

If you had any of the above you were side tracked in my eyes. All the time missind watching tv you could been read look how to improve and with other stuff to.

Also that one thing that stoped me the other thing my coach got me to the best he could so a better cost was fair to in cost. For top coaches its like 30-45 pound per 45min training sessions.

And my PA is not locked just like everyone isen't, Even now with right training good coach (doesen't allways mean they are good players in past) and with all the hours and stuff you still would improve quick.

Also were talking about a games and i like my games to be the fact i good at a game not fact that the games say that the top he can be. You not finding good player this way you just luck if you do.

makeing the games about luck.

I mean i understand if some improve more or less with there determination work rate faciltys and also with coaches this is what sould effect CA more and improveing rather than it be a random PA number.

Regards

Squashman

I think you're mistunderstanding what PA is, they have been given that number, and then level of traning and things like work rate and determination decide whether a player ever reaches their potential, there isn't any need to add more points.

I'll give you two examples

Player A has a potential of 160, but because he is quite lazy and starts at a low level club with quite bad facilities and coaches, he only ever reaches 90

Player B has a pontential of 120, obviously not very good, but he is a hard worker and is lucky enough t start at a big club with good facilities and coaches, so reaches 110.

Overall, Player B is actually a better player than A, even though player A originally had a higher PA.

CA is one of the only ways of judging a plyer for yourself, of course it is important.

This is why i think CA sould be more implemented as that the only way we can see. really.

Also then you got the effects of bad coaches and bad facilty that will implement there improvement speed.

But for me i think the PA should be looked at in future games.

I think if we carn't see it its just all about luck.

Regards

Squashman

I know that, it's just I usually pay more attention to the PA. I've been playing this game for a long time now and believe me never let the PA out of your sights. I also make sure I don't play FM for more than 4 hours at a time, thereby always being on the top of my game!

It's your game and all that, but PA is supposed to be hidden in the first place so you don't know the potential your getting when you sign a youth.

This is why i think CA sould be more implemented as that the only way we can see. really.

Also then you got the effects of bad coaches and bad facilty that will implement there improvement speed.

But for me i think the PA should be looked at in future games.

I think if we carn't see it its just all about luck.

Regards

Squashman

It's not about luck though. If you have half decent scouts then they can spot the potential without you ever having to know the players PA.

Ooh no, don't be sorry. You'll learn what I mean eventually, some things in FM you just develop for yourself, and the PA is something you'll learn to really love. It can really save you in some situations.

Stop spamming my friend or your stay on the forum could be short

But it's relevant to FM, I'm just trying to help people. For example: 'Lofting' the ball can be a dangerous move, as it can be out of control and quite easily go to the other team. In some situations I agree it's completely necessary, however make sure you only use it when a short pass isn't possible as you are far less likely to lose the ball.

But what does that have to do with the topic here?

But it's relevant to FM, I'm just trying to help people. For example: 'Lofting' the ball can be a dangerous move, as it can be out of control and quite easily go to the other team. In some situations I agree it's completely necessary, however make sure you only use it when a short pass isn't possible as you are far less likely to lose the ball.

You can help others and help the Mods by posting positive relevant contributions to the topic under discussion and not this type of nonsense

IMO PA is Nature and CA is Nurture.

You nurture a player to reach his natural potential. (Although the game doesn't reflect extremely advanced and good diets and workouts etc. used at the highest clubs in places like Italy to extend a players peak and possible playing time)

"Make your own destiny, rather than determine it at birth"

"Make your own destiny, rather than determine it at birth"

Doesn't mean that anyone if they train hard can become the world's best footballer.

Doesn't mean that anyone if they train hard can become the world's best footballer.

Of course not. But can you ever rule it out? Indeed, can you put a number on it? Can you ever say with 100% certainty a player will never be better than a certain limit?

The point is that with floating PA it is possible but highly improbable. You are more likely to win the Euromillions fifty times over than it to happen - that sort of probability.

Of course not. But can you ever rule it out? Indeed, can you put a number on it? Can you ever say with 100% certainty a player will never be better than a certain limit?

The point is that with floating PA it is possible but highly improbable. You are more likely to win the Euromillions fifty times over than it to happen - that sort of probability.

Yes you can, it's just not easy. I know for certain I never had the potential to be a professional footballer, never mind a Premier League footballer.

At the moment perhaps not because physically the human body won't be able to do such a thing unless you trained from young.

This does not apply, of course, to a 16-year-old professional regen in-game.

At the moment perhaps not because physically the human body won't be able to do such a thing unless you trained from young.

This does not apply, of course, to a 16-year-old professional regen in-game.

The way you gotta think about this as well if your CA is allready a pro football (to be in football manager) There PA should be very high as at the age of 16 if there allready good its mean they have the abilty to be world class. With the right coach and the right training grounds.

Regards

Squashman

Regen PAs should definitely be linked in some way to work rate and such.

I had an idea the other day. What if every "year", it was guaranteed that certain players would come through? I don't mean everybody would get Steve Hamilton, Welsh striker born in a village just outside Wrexham, but for example, every year there was guaranteed to be a centre back with 180 PA, tackling over 14, marking over 12, and so on? Or a striker with around 150 PA, high work rate, stamina and determination, but average finishing? This could help the game add players of a reasonable quantity and quality for the highest level, the Europa League, middle table sides, right down to good non-League players. It could help with the "rounding" of players.

SI could potentially add 200 pre-sets or more. When the time comes around, fifteen could be selected to be "added" that year. The system would be like a biased raffle. That English defensive midfielder with 172 PA, positioning 16 already and really rounded attributes is more likely to go to Man United, based in England, youth academy, 20 for youth facilities and a high reputation than Sporting Cristal, who are based in Peru and have little link to England. There'd be a better chance of him coming through at United than at Crewe, more chance of him being at Crewe than at Blackpool, more chance of him being at Blackpool than Bournemouth, and a slim chance he'll show up at Hyde United.

I don't just mean that this should guarantee there are good players out there. It could guarantee that there are talented but lazy players, headless chickens who are physically strong and excel in a handful of technical areas but lack rounded technical games and have little to the mental side, brilliant readers of the game who get outmuscled (Hugo Viana?), and so on. There could be "guaranteed players" who have the basic skills of a winger for the Championship. Of course, they could play in Singapore or be clubless.

Dunno if that is necessary personally because there is no such guarantee.

You could argue that English academies as a whole went through a barren period a decade ago - see the current England national team.

All I'm asking is that perhaps chucking PA away means that the players get to make their own destinies. The players most likely to succeed at the top will be the most ambitious, professional, good-from-the-start and lucky ones. You'll get slackers who have terrible professionalism but have got their way to the top through sheer genius, and the odd player who isn't that technical but, say, has outstanding mental attributes (say Roy Keane) to make it there. Then there will be the odd player who doesn't fit into any category but simply rode his luck - perhaps as a youngster his club decided to hire the worst Newcastle physios and all the players in front of him frequently got injured, so even though he was rubbish at least he ended up playing more first-team games than any other youngster his age. And of course there could be some 16-year-old with a CA off the charts, but decided to idolise Ricardo Quaresma and ended up dropping out of professional leagues altogether.

Dunno if that is necessary personally because there is no such guarantee.

You could argue that English academies as a whole went through a barren period a decade ago - see the current England national team.

All I'm asking is that perhaps chucking PA away means that the players get to make their own destinies. The players most likely to succeed at the top will be the most ambitious, professional, good-from-the-start and lucky ones. You'll get slackers who have terrible professionalism but have got their way to the top through sheer genius, and the odd player who isn't that technical but, say, has outstanding mental attributes (say Roy Keane) to make it there. Then there will be the odd player who doesn't fit into any category but simply rode his luck - perhaps as a youngster his club decided to hire the worst Newcastle physios and all the players in front of him frequently got injured, so even though he was rubbish at least he ended up playing more first-team games than any other youngster his age. And of course there could be some 16-year-old with a CA off the charts, but decided to idolise Ricardo Quaresma and ended up dropping out of professional leagues altogether.

That the sort thing i that be good.

Not saying all 16 years old will be amazing but you can see and decide if you could make them amazing.

SO you have the chance to see if they got a little chance or no chance at all.

Regards

Squashman

Dunno if that is necessary personally because there is no such guarantee.

You could argue that English academies as a whole went through a barren period a decade ago - see the current England national team.

The one with the best centre back pairing in International football, one of the best left backs around, two top-of-the-range central midfielders and several other solid players? Not forgetting Owen, or even the Nevilles, Scholes and Beckham if you go back far enough.

Nationalities aren't important. However, it is very, very likely that a handful of potentially world class centre backs will come through worldwide in the next two years. All the current young centre backs weren't around a few years ago. Likewise, every other position.

Nature vs Nurture, we meet again I've had this argument many times on this forum so I'm not going to get into it but what I will say is I agree with this

I think player CA should impact the PA more then random numbers on player.

but not in the way you describe it. I think scouts should judge potential the same way it is judged in real life, namely that there is an inherent assumption that a 14/15 year old can improve so usually how good a player is relative to his peers has an impact on expectations. So to me PA should be removed from scout judgement altogether and it should be based on CA relative to their age. I am ignoring the real life concept of training academies whereby coaches deal with youngsters for many years and use that as a judgement of their potential based on incremental improvement, and focusing on scouts.

I don't think any scout could watch a player play, see that he is not as good as his peers (CA) but magically predict that he will turn out to be better than his peers. Unless he picks up on particular attributes and assumes the possibility of improving others e.g. more possible to improve technique than pace so a scout might recommend a pacy full back who could learn better positioning rather than a slow full back who already has decent positional sense, but that's another argument/level of sophistication beyond the basic argument that PA should be removed from scout judgement altogether.

This is exactly what I've argued for the in the past, as well.

I agree that physical attributes might act as a marker for 'raw talent' because they're harder to improve (I recall reading recently that Man Utd paid so much for Chris Smalling because they think he has all the physical attributes and can be coached in to a decent centre-back with time), but the other sort of thing that scouts could take in to account are personality attributes like determination, professionalism, ambition, etc - a dedicated and hard-working youngster might be more likely to improve than an equally talented but less professional colleague.

Either way, I agree that there's no reason for the actual PA value to factor in to the scout/assistant's assessment.

(As an aside, on the basis of playing around with an in-game editor, you can see that scouts/assistant's do give consideration to age and some other attributes when they judge potential, but that the PA value still has a big influence).

PA is there goal, the best that they can be.

CA is what they are now.

Normal stats and play time affect how the CA increases, with it never exceeding the PA.