20/20 Arsenal scouts give 4 stars for crap young players...

Being Arsenal, my scouts (Rowley and Cagigao) don't stop putting CRAP young players in their scouting reports (e.g. mid-europe etc)

an example is following player:

-Juanmi

16 years old spannish youngster --> 1 star now, potential 4 stars...

I have looked it up in FMRTE because NONE of my 1st team players (except for fabregas) have a 4*rating... I thought I had found an amazing talent !

result: CA: around 90 & PA 140...

WTF 4* ?!

I have rescouted the player by all other scouts again and again... BUT THEY KEEP GIVING HIM 4* POTENTIAL... THIS IS SH*T

I really have this feeling: good scouts ONLY can make hidden attributes visible, the current and potential ability rating DOESN'T change, it's always NONSENSE !

again, what a great game waaaaaw !

There are plenty of players IRL who looked to have huge potential but never lived up to it. I may be wrong here, but I don't think scouts are built to be perfect in game.

in fact, it doesn't matter what kind of scouts you have (rating 5/20 or 20/20) --> just visual LIES from SI !

I haven't got any statistics to back me up, but I would be very surprised to find that even world class scouts IRL always gets it right. In other words, as long as the ability to find good players isn't completely unrelated to a scout's skill level I really don't see a problem.

in fact, it doesn't matter what kind of scouts you have (rating 5/20 or 20/20) --> just visual LIES from SI !

Unless you've got something more than that statement to back your theory I'll certainly take it with a grain of salt.

There are plenty of players IRL who looked to have huge potential but never lived up to it. I may be wrong here, but I don't think scouts are built to be perfect in game.

They are sometimes excessively blind tho... I tried using Real Madrid's scouts to check on Alvaro Pereira (Porto). According to their reports he would be a good signing for a Liga adelante side (2nd tier). I was like :confused:.

I used him in my Porto save and he was the best left back Ive ever had lol. And he is obviously way better than any D L in liga adelante lol.. You can easily check by his attributes...

He's 16, it isn't exactly easy to judge potential that accurately at that age. They think he is going to be good, which is fair enough, even if they think he's going to be better than he really is. I would predict that those stars will go down with age as they realise he won't be quite as good as they first thought he would be.

Although I don't really want to hear about CA/PAs, I'm quite pleased to hear that scout reports of 16 year olds are not 100% accurate. It would be a rather dull game if they were.

So you've used a cheat (fmrte) and are now complaining about what you've learnt? My sympathy for you = nothing.

As stated above no scout IRL or FM is perfect. I couldn't tell you how many supposed 'wonderkids' have been touted at various clubs around the world only for them to disappear into an abyss a year or so later.

The scouts are designed to not always get it right.

Scouts in real life can't always be right.

Although I don't really want to hear about CA/PAs, I'm quite pleased to hear that scout reports of 16 year olds are not 100% accurate. It would be a rather dull game if they were.

Havent tried with 10.3 yet but the problem for me is that even when these players are 18-19 the scouts still arent accurate !

Even after some of these players develop they still have the same thing in their reports "XXXXX is some way off having the potential to become as good as YYYYY". Even when player XXXXXX is really close to YYYYYY's level the report is still the same crap ! (even if XXXXX can become better)

But other thing that annoys me is that they are excessively blind. Ok if they cant spot who is going to be as good as/better than Dzeko but when I scout M C's or use Ass Man's reports on my youngsters their reports cant get past this : "Has the potential to play at similar level as Raul Meireles". What?! Raul Meireles is good but he isnt world class ffs ! Im 99% sure these players can become better than him lol (players aged from 16 to 19.. even after they aged the reports dont change lol.. at least on 10.2)

thats why i never hear to what my scouts say...if i like the stats i buy the player even if he has only half a star...ofc 8 out of 10 times im wrong,but 20% are really good players either for my team or for sale

btw i never pay more than 100k euro (if i play top club) for youngsters,i like to find diamonds in the rough

the CA and PA you are getting from your scouts it depends from th reputation of the player and the team he plays.

e.x. I bought a player from boca juniors for 50k and he is 3.5 stars but when i was scouting him he had PA 2.5 STARS and CA 2 stars

a year later i bought a player from man utd for 2.1m in the scout reports he was having PA 4 stars and CA 3 stars but when i signed him he was having 2.5 stars for PA and CA a year later PA AND CA WENT TO 3 STARS

I want to say that the scout reports are depended from the reputation of the the player and especially of his team.

If all the scouts are giving an identical assessment and there is no difference of opinion then that is worth looking into. However...

What you have done is a bit like reading the last page of a book then complaining the ending has been spoilt and the rest isn't worth reading. The PA isn't meant to be viewed, you are meant to use your judgement.

If you play the game as designed, you probably take a chance on the player, he develops into a decent Premier League player, racks up a few first team appearances but is not one of your stars - actually pretty good for taking a chance on a 16 year old. Like a real manager you might develop a blind spot and play him more than he deserves because you feel like you developed him. Or you might dump him for the latest big signing having got frustrated with his lack of improvement (Theo Walcott anyone?). Whatever you choose, you are immersed in the reality presented.

If you poke around in the workings of the game, you might find better players, but you will never have the satisfaction the comes with a gamble paying off, or the disappointment of one of your favourites not quite making the grade. You are playing half the game you could have played. As the cliche goes - life is a journey not a destination!

Do you think the Arsenal scouts told Arsene Wenger that Francis Jeffers had a 4 star potential?

Just because a player has a high PA does not automaticly make him a good player, look at Theo Wallcott! Many pundits are now claiming he just isn't the player they thought he was going to be. Therefore a player with a low PA can shine in your team given the right training and tactics.

I can live with scouts reporting nonsene and proposing godawful players...

However the major issue with scouting and reports is the star system itself being inconsistent and quite frankly convoluted.

Player X has 1* CA and 2.5* PA, but compared to our Player Y who is 3*/3*, but said stars are weighed according to the average level of other players at the team and to the status of the club etc.

Basically it's like saying: Mary is a blimp, because she's bigger than Jane, which is the fattest chick we know. But then again, the idea of "fat" we have is NOT universal... So, depending on our take on it, Mary might be anything from 65kg to 150kg...

In the same vein, it makes NO SENSE getting a 3* report for a "good player" who, in reality, is a top class player, just because we already have plenty of star players.

CA and PA , while hidden, are determined values, with a fixed impact on the game... so a 180CA/PA player should NEVER get a 3* rating, nor a 50CA/120PA a 3.5* PA

I see the need of putting the value of a player in perspective, because a backup at ManU can be a Star at Wolves, but that shouldn't come to detriment of its GLOBAL POSITION on the football map.

We need two more scouting category...

Current Ability [in the big picture]: aka he's ok for low-level EPL

Potential Ability [big picture]: aka he'll be a world class player

Current Contribution [to our club]: aka he can do well for us already

Potential Contribution [to our club]: aka he'll be our best player ever and we'll sell him to Chelsea for a truckload of money

We need two more scouting category...

Current Ability [in the big picture]: aka he's ok for low-level EPL

Potential Ability [big picture]: aka he'll be a world class player

Current Contribution [to our club]: aka he can do well for us already

Potential Contribution [to our club]: aka he'll be our best player ever and we'll sell him to Chelsea for a truckload of money

This is the system that's in place at the moment...

Current Ability [in the big picture]:

"Steve believes Benaglio would be a good signing for most premier league sides."

Potential Ability [big picture]:

"Steve Rowley doesn't think that Benaglio is likely to improve in the future"

Current Contribution [to our club]:

"Steve Rowley believes there isn't much difference between Benaglio and our strongest goalkeeper Manuel Almunia"

Read the scout reports and don't just look at stars - the info's all there.

Still, the scout report is way too vague...

"a good signing for most Premier Division sides" could mean "he's good for Wigan and average for Everton" or "he's starting eleven material pretty much everywhere".

And let's not forget what the OP mentioned, so your "good player" might as well be much weaker [or stronger] than suggested.

The point is, there isn't a univocal "measurement unit" to translate CA/PA [fixed figures] into a coherent and understandable scout reports.

P.S. I can read the report for a couple of players, but what about assignements which return HUNDREDS of players?

Stars and actual report aren't a good enough match, and that's a significant issue. I should understand at once if a 3* recommended player is a "definite purchase" or is just another rotation player, or, worse, an expensive benchwarmer

It's because you're only asking for a report. It generally gives a young player 2 and a half or 3 stars if you do that. If you scout them for 3 matches then you'll see a difference.

Personally I don't live or die by the star ratings. It'll give me an idea of which players to look at myself. I'll use the strengths and weaknesses section of the scout report to get an idea of consistency, adaptability and big games stats, check a player's personality to make sure he fits in with the squad and then check to see his attributes are where they're needed. If you're in the market for a fast clinical striker you only really need pace, acceleration, technique, composure, finishing, anticipation. A player with CA distributed among those key stats doesn't need a CA of 165+ as he only needs a few attributes high enough to do the job you want him to. What good's an attacking midfielder with great CA if it's wasted in tackling, long throws, corners and strength?

The way you seem to be approaching the transfer and scouting system sounds like you're only signing players based on CA and PA. In which case you may as well use FMRTE as you're not really judging the player for yourself at all.

PS. I know all this because I was once like you... just look at the attributes yourself, decide what you want from the player and check out the 2.5 star upwards players. You'll enjoy the game more.

CA 90 at 16 is really good, which doubtless contributes to the star rating.

One word. Portillo!

Scouting is supposed to be error-prone. You having 20/20 scouts does not mean %100 accuracy. There is no such thing IRL as perfect scouting. if there were such scouts who could spot next Ronaldo and Messi, Real Madrid would pay them 50m €

Obviously the player the OP mentions has some sort of combination which convinces the scouts that he can be good, but IRL you can also find lots of young players who is considered as gold by many scouts but some will never become even a silver.

If there is one thing I could blame FM for this issue is; the presentation of scouts attributes. They should not have 20/20 scouts around. Because when an att. says 20 out of 20 people expect it to be perfect. Maybe it is better if they use verbal values instead of numbers it may be easier to accept failures by users.

The way you seem to be approaching the transfer and scouting system sounds like you're only signing players based on CA and PA. In which case you may as well use FMRTE as you're not really judging the player for yourself at all.

PS. I know all this because I was once like you... just look at the attributes yourself, decide what you want from the player and check out the 2.5 star upwards players. You'll enjoy the game more.

Actually I'm not like that, rather the opposite...

My gripe about the Stars is not "3* players look weak", but "weak players got 3*"

I've scouted so many players whose attributes looked great, yet my scouts kept on telling me they weren't good enough...

Just to warmly suggest me to sign expensive players with dismal attributes...

See, I can see a scout "mistaking" a 130PA young striker for a future star, but I can't understand it anymore when said striker has 8 Composure, 9 Finishing, 4 Heading and 8 Off the Ball

Or a "leading Premier Division central defender in the future" who's unable to tackle, mark, jump or hold his position.

This is not so unrealistic. In real life a scout may look at a player and see he has potential. He cant possibly know exactly how good that player may become. In this case the scout has realised that this player has potential to be substantially better than he is just now.

What you are asking for is perfectly accurate results time after time. If you want that then just use FMRTE to do your scouting.

I'll be settling for realism which i think SI have provided in this case.

Actually I'm not like that, rather the opposite...

My apologies for that one then

See, I can see a scout "mistaking" a 130PA young striker for a future star, but I can't understand it anymore when said striker has 8 Composure, 9 Finishing, 4 Heading and 8 Off the Ball

Or a "leading Premier Division central defender in the future" who's unable to tackle, mark, jump or hold his position.

I'm sure you've exaggerated those attributes to a point but I understand where you're coming from. The confusion I have then though is either the scouts 'see' the CA and have a set reference for each league (165+ = good prem, 150+ = decent prem etc) regardless of position. If this is the case then the scenario you describe above is understandable. Trouble then is though that when you get coach reports for a player his star rating changes for different positions (drop down box in the top right of the report). Is this change in star rating because you need less CA to be a top centre back than a top attacking midfielder? Or is it because the player plays better in certain positions so his CA alters (natural, competent, awkward etc).

I think this problem will always exist as if the system is too transparent and formulaic then FM reveals itself to be what it's often criticsed to be: just a giant spreadsheet. It is always going to run on the basis of players having attributes and CA and PA and the difficulty for SI is to try and disguise this as best as possible without it becoming too subjective or predictable. I personally (as you can probably tell) think they've got a good balance right now but I appreciate that other views exist.

Maybe a solution would be to have some kind of continuum representation - A line with players from your first team on it for a set position (Thomas Cruise>Armand Traore>Mickael Silvestre>Kieran Gibbs>Gael Clichy in Arsenal's case for left backs) and your scout puts the scouted player somewhere on that line. May be a rubbish idea but it's a different take on representing the information as numbers and words don't seem to be the best way for all.