Stats or Ratings?

Wasn't really sure where to put this, but i was wondering when you go to sign a player do you base it purely on stats or on how they play or both.

I only really go for the players with the better stats regardless of how they play, e.g. I would never sign a defender with tackling less than 15, even if they are averaging 8's in decent leagues.

The problem is with the best players is the fact that they cost alot more, or the other team wont sell them.

Should i sign players with average stats who get 8's or the best players who cost several times more, and dont play aswell?

Or does it make much of a difference?

Also a side note: Has anyone ever created a club team with all the players of the same nationality? and if so did it work/did they play well?

More of a GD thread, but I try to base it on both ratings and stats, but mainly ratings.

Stats are misleading. The assists stat is broken, the other day, Drenthe ran down the left wing with the ball, passed it back to Granero who ran into the box, crossed it to the back post for Ronaldo to score, but Drenthe got the assist; why?

Personally, I take most stats over ratings but I don't take goals/assists seriously. Things like key passes, dribbles, interceptions, headers and tackles won I read a lot more into depending on position.

I tend to go for stats, most players that have good stats, have good ratings on most occasions, but ratings for another team dont matter imo, it depends on your team and how you play the player as to how good their ratings are for you.

Definitely a GD thread, but while its still here I'll add my thoughts. I work off a combination of things with the players attributes and my scout reports carrying much more weight than their ratings. As Kyle rightly points out the ratings they get for another team doesn't affect me too much because its all about how they'll fit into my team and system.

One of the things that I take more notice of than ratings is their personality and whether that fits with the rest of my squad.

As for your point about all the best players being expensive or at top clubs, I'd say thats true for the well known ones but even a quick browse through GPTG will show you that there are great players available at bargain prices if you look hard enough.

i signed a promising left back with very bad offensive attributes(everything in low 7s) but solid defensive points but he managed to score 3 goals on this first 2 games from left back position!

i signed a promising left back with very bad offensive attributes(everything in low 7s) but solid defensive points but he managed to score 3 goals on this first 2 games from left back position!

I usually go for stats most of the time but I signed Robert Snodgrass because he was played brilliant in the Championship for Leeds. I got him for £1 million for Everton and he became a very useful squad player and helped me to 4 titles in a row playing at least 20-25 games a season.

Moved into the GD forum.

Yeah attributes definitely.

At the start of the season I tend to line up my strongest 11 according to attributes, but as the season commences I switch things around according to statistics and form.

Why play Riera when Babel's been better all season?

Attributes always.

Stats are unreliable because previous managers could of made that player not get many goals, assists etc... You can use their attributes with your tactics

If theres a player who has 20 for everything (I know it cannot happen) he play up front and scores 10 goals in 50 games. And theres another player who score 50 goals in 50 games but has 10 for every attribute - then the attributes are for show and the stats are for doe!

But obviously the given players have to player for similar teams etc and there are many variables that effect each player differently so it will be hard to make a like for like comparision. But its quite rare for a player to have great attributes and not perform to a high level but it can happen and vise versa.