What happened to the 20s???

How come players having 20 for an attribute is so difficult? In previous FMs, there used to be a lot more of 20s, and I think that was the right way, because if a player is really good at something, why not give him 20 just because he's not the absolutely best in the world?

I give you some examples:

Cristiano Ronaldo doesn't have a single 20 IIRC. He should have 20 at:

- Flair

- Acceleration

- Pace

Messi only has 20 at Flair. He should have 20 at:

- Dribbling

- Technique

- Acceleration

- Flair

Pirlo also doesn't have 20s. He should have 20 at:

- Free Kicks

- Passing

Beckham:

- Free Kicks

- Crossing

Ronaldinho:

- First touch

- Technique

- Flair

Where I'm getting with this is not just to raise these stats by one, but to understand that the 20 does not necessarily have to represent only the best player in the world at a specific attribute. As there are lots of 19s, why not also 20s?

Also, we all become proud to see one of our youngsters, in who we put so much time and effort, to develop into a class player with one or two 20s.

Other thing that usually happens to me is the almost impossible task of maintaining 20s that are technical or physical attributes. Every time I have a player with 20 at pace or corners, in six months or so he drops into a 19 and then never changes again.

I get the impression that FM has a complex with giving 20s to players. Of course having 20 at something isn't for everyone, but seeing one or two every now and then would be more pleasing, and realistic.

Cristiano Ronaldo 20 at pace and acclereation? No way. There are plenty of persons that are terrible footballers, but are a lot faster than he is.

But 20s should de saved to the best players ever, not the current best players IMO.

I agree, more 20s

Cristiano Ronaldo 20 at pace and acclereation? No way. There are plenty of persons that are terrible footballers, but are a lot faster than he is.

But 20s should de saved to the best players ever, not the current best players IMO.

That's my point, but in the opposite way. 20s shouldn't be only for the best. If there are players in lower divisions that are very fast, give them 20s. If there are players that are exceptional at taking free kicks in mid/low clubs, give them 20s. If you want an example with a not so famous player, Porto's Bruno Alves should definitely have 20 at jumping and aggression.

If there are players that are exceptional at taking free kicks in mid/low clubs, give them 20s..

There might be players that are exceptional at taking free kicks in mid/low clubs, but that is relative to the other players at that level, because you can't possibly know that they will perform just as good at higher level, thus they do not deserve 20.

I do agree with you on stats like aggression, speed, ...

yes, there are some attributes that you can't give 20s for low clubs, like Influence, Composure, Positioning. These kind of attributes depend also on the players that compete along with this player, but some attributes, in this case set pieces, can be relatively the same in low or top clubs.

I've seen some 20s in my game, but there seem to be some rules like strength/jumping/stamina are more likely to be 20 than speed-related attributes.

But I'm more in favour of less 20s (or, lets say that I'm happy as it is). 20 means rating between 96-100 in 0-100 scale. It means pretty much absolute maximum. So it has to be rare.

I wouldn't like to see some super players in game, even if they are Messi or Ronaldo, and I feel that no player should have 20 for more than 1 attribute.

As I understand it, difference in attributes gets bigger when value grows. So it doesn't matter much if pace is 8 or 9, but it matters whether it's 18 or 19. So handing out a lot of 20-s exaggerates some players supremacy in ME too much.

That's my point, but in the opposite way. 20s shouldn't be only for the best.

They should be for the best handful at doing that job.

I've been lucky enough to see two players who deserve 20s play for my side (Reading). We had Greg Halford for six months, who has easily the longest throw around, and Jimmy Kébé will probably have 20 for pace and acceleration in the next update if his CA allows. Halford is genuinely world class at long throws; Kébé is genuinely one of the fastest players in the world. That's what 20 for something means.

The reason the number of 20s have fallen is because they were given out far too easily before.

If you want an example with a not so famous player, Porto's Bruno Alves should definitely have 20 at jumping and aggression.

Bruno Alves is only 6'3. He's not a 20 jumping player.

Bruno Alves is only 6'3. He's not a 20 jumping player.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr_9IeJMwwc

Watch the first goal. Tell me that's not a 20 for jumping. (and yes I know Jumping is height + jump)

After that Long Throw against Slovenia I think Gooch earned his 20 in that category, heh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr_9IeJMwwc

Watch the first goal. Tell me that's not a 20 for jumping. (and yes I know Jumping is height + jump)

I'm pretty sure that what the guy was saying when Alves scored the goal translated into english is 'Ah, now you see? He definitely deserves a 20 in jumping!'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr_9IeJMwwc

Watch the first goal. Tell me that's not a 20 for jumping. (and yes I know Jumping is height + jump)

Good grief, one YouTube video and all is well!

Bruno Alves does not have an incredible reach compared with the tallest players in the world.

And it's not like 20 is the only good attribute. Considering the game works on a 1-20 scale (1-100 behind the scenes), anything in the region of 10 is "average", and therefore anything in the 12-14 range can be considered "good". If you want to make 20 represent more than just the best then you will have a problem when it comes to distinguish between the best.

I also think the OP hasn't really seen Pirlo's free kicks recently (they've become largely rubbish). Beckham isn't as prolific with free kicks any more (wonder when the last time he scored from one was), and Ronaldinho has all-round become fairly poor and his first touch is very good but not a 20.

How come players having 20 for an attribute is so difficult? In previous FMs, there used to be a lot more of 20s, and I think that was the right way, because if a player is really good at something, why not give him 20 just because he's not the absolutely best in the world?

I give you some examples:

Cristiano Ronaldo doesn't have a single 20 IIRC. He should have 20 at:

- Flair

- Acceleration

- Pace

Messi only has 20 at Flair. He should have 20 at:

- Dribbling

- Technique

- Acceleration

- Flair

Pirlo also doesn't have 20s. He should have 20 at:

- Free Kicks

- Passing

Beckham:

- Free Kicks

- Crossing

Ronaldinho:

- First touch

- Technique

- Flair

Where I'm getting with this is not just to raise these stats by one, but to understand that the 20 does not necessarily have to represent only the best player in the world at a specific attribute. As there are lots of 19s, why not also 20s?

Also, we all become proud to see one of our youngsters, in who we put so much time and effort, to develop into a class player with one or two 20s.

Other thing that usually happens to me is the almost impossible task of maintaining 20s that are technical or physical attributes. Every time I have a player with 20 at pace or corners, in six months or so he drops into a 19 and then never changes again.

I get the impression that FM has a complex with giving 20s to players. Of course having 20 at something isn't for everyone, but seeing one or two every now and then would be more pleasing, and realistic.

well the person who does a skill the best and does it so good like the best in the world at it should get a 20.and since noone else does it as good as him then they can't get a 20 to can they.

DOUBLE POST, sorry!

Cristiano Ronaldo 20 at pace and acclereation? No way. There are plenty of persons that are terrible footballers, but are a lot faster than he is.

But 20s should de saved to the best players ever, not the current best players IMO.

I agree with this, 20s have to be given only in exceptional cases.

The best in the world should be the best in the world. If that means 17 is the highest rating in the world, as long as the right guy has it, it makes sense.

It also gives the chance for some regen to be better than them in it. There's always going to be someone better, so handing out 20s rarely is fine by me.

There's nothing wrong with attributes in the range 15-17 anyway, which is "very good".

20s are rare and I don't know why the OP thinks it's realistic to have lots of 20s, nor has the OP given any other reason why more 20s are good besides "they look good".

There's nothing wrong with attributes in the range 15-17 anyway, which is "very good".

20s are rare and I don't know why the OP thinks it's realistic to have lots of 20s, nor has the OP given any other reason why more 20s are good besides "they look good".

It just seems to me that there certain 19s that could easily be 20s. TBH I didn't know that the difference between a 8 and a 9 was smaller than a difference between a 19 and a 20, like someone said here, but I still think that there are players loaded with 19s and not one single 20. And then come the regens with 20s in tackling and heading, even though they are full backs.

It just seems to me that there certain 19s that could easily be 20s. TBH I didn't know that the difference between a 8 and a 9 was smaller than a difference between a 19 and a 20, like someone said here, but I still think that there are players loaded with 19s and not one single 20. And then come the regens with 20s in tackling and heading, even though they are full backs.

The difference between the attributes is the same AFAICT.

I don't see a problem if a player is loaded with 19s. It just means that he's not the absolute best in the world in any of those areas, which is a fair thing to say considering there aren't supposed to be that many 20s.

If you have too many 20's, what differentiates the fastest player in the world and Ronaldo? When 20s were given out more freely, the best players often looked similar. It was hard to say that X and Y are the best strikers in the world, but X is a touch better at finishing, while Y is more a flair player than X. A 19 and a 20 shows this better.

I'd give Anelka 20 at sulking.

That's my point, but in the opposite way. 20s shouldn't be only for the best. If there are players in lower divisions that are very fast, give them 20s. If there are players that are exceptional at taking free kicks in mid/low clubs, give them 20s. If you want an example with a not so famous player, Porto's Bruno Alves should definitely have 20 at jumping and aggression.

I agree with this.

There aren't enough "freaks" in the game.

I would have thought Walcott should have 20 for pace and/or acceleration for example, but in my save he's only got 19.

I agree with this.

There aren't enough "freaks" in the game.

How many "freaks" are there in real life then? How many players are like Theo Walcott, all pace?

It's not like the world is overloaded with players who are potentially 20 in some areas.

Cristiano Ronaldo has 20 flair :0 Thats a bit of a joke anit it ??

How many "freaks" are there in real life then? How many players are like Theo Walcott, all pace?

It's not like the world is overloaded with players who are potentially 20 in some areas.

It's not just 20s, but other high numbers too. For example, there are surely plenty of players in the conference who could beat Rooney over 100m but lack the skill to play at a higher level, but on FM it seems there aren't any conference players with more then 15 for pace.

I'd like to see a greater range between the highest and lowest attribute of players at lower levels.

I think it depends on your game. Messi in my game has 20 for Flair, Technique and Agility. Ronaldo has 20 for Flair, and I have a few others in my squad with one 20, but they are rare.

I think it's good that they are rare, in previous FMs maybe there were too many 20s floating around. Now I know when one of my youngsters manages to get a 20 then they really are on their way to being World Class.

There aren't many terribly quick players in the Conference anyway (39 fitting your criteria, 19 with pace and acceleration > 15), but then again a 100m sprint is hardly representative of football games.

There aren't many terribly quick players in the Conference anyway (39 fitting your criteria, 19 with pace and acceleration > 15), but then again a 100m sprint is hardly representative of football games.

What do you mean not representative in football games?? I am a sprinter, and, whether in a football match or not in a football match, the fact is I would have greater pace than Rooney. Granted, I am absolutely awful at football but ASSUMING i was a conference standard player and were represented in the ME I should have a pace (and acceleration) attribute much higher than Rooney's.

Physical stats are irrespective of level played at IRL and should be in FM. But they aren't. Too many lower level players are given poor pace/acceleration just because they play in poor leagues or non-league.

thats weird because i have a regen with 4 or 5 20's

thats weird because i have a regen with 4 or 5 20's

This is why I say that real players should have more 20s. Of course these 20s would still be rare, in case you didn't notice the examples i gave in the OP were of few and world class players. But since the regens tend to have much more 20s than the real players, onw of two things should happen:

- Give more 20s to real players

- Make world class regens not so god-like players

Edgar Davids - CM01/02

Check out how many 20's he has

What do you mean not representative in football games?? I am a sprinter, and, whether in a football match or not in a football match, the fact is I would have greater pace than Rooney. Granted, I am absolutely awful at football but ASSUMING i was a conference standard player and were represented in the ME I should have a pace (and acceleration) attribute much higher than Rooney's.

That's nice, but would you be able to outsprint Rooney on a boggy pitch, with heavy football boots, non-aerodynamic clothes, in the cold, under the pressure of millions watching you at home, without starting blocks, not necessarily in a straight line, with others jostling you for the ball, after you've been hacked down several times by bad tackles? In other words, can you replicate this in footballing conditions?

The fact that you, a sprinter, are faster than Rooney in track conditions, means absolutely nothing as sprinters don't become footballers just like that, especially not at Conference level. If you are really quick it doesn't mean you become a footballer.

The assumption you would be a Conference footballer is a false assumption anyway.

Berbatov should have 20 first touch.

Cristiano Ronaldo has 20 flair :0 Thats a bit of a joke anit it ??

He should have a 20 in diving

Physical stats are irrespective of level played at IRL and should be in FM. But they aren't. Too many lower level players are given poor pace/acceleration just because they play in poor leagues or non-league.

Actually, physical attributes are treated as absolute. The only problem is that CAs cannot necessarily be raised to accommodate that, so researchers have to artificially lower them on occasion.

Edgar Davids - CM01/02

Check out how many 20's he has

Edgar Davids

The inspiration for my name

He should have had 20 in everything.

Remember Obafemi Martins getting nuked because his physical stats made him stupidly good.

Just had a look at some of the top guys in my game

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4206/yattara.jpg

not a single 20 but 10 x 19s...

That's nice, but would you be able to outsprint Rooney on a boggy pitch, with heavy football boots, non-aerodynamic clothes, in the cold, under the pressure of millions watching you at home, without starting blocks, not necessarily in a straight line, with others jostling you for the ball, after you've been hacked down several times by bad tackles? In other words, can you replicate this in footballing conditions?

The fact that you, a sprinter, are faster than Rooney in track conditions, means absolutely nothing as sprinters don't become footballers just like that, especially not at Conference level. If you are really quick it doesn't mean you become a footballer.

The assumption you would be a Conference footballer is a false assumption anyway.

the scenario you described is irrelevant as it also includes attributes of strength and balance and agility as well as the hidden attribute of consistency and big matches. I find when I play football there is not a single player on the pitch that can match me for pace, and I doubt that Rooney would be faster than me in a burst to the ball over 20m.

However he would probably win the ball due to his better aggression, detemrination, strength, bravery, balance etc...

That's nice, but would you be able to outsprint Rooney on a boggy pitch, with heavy football boots, non-aerodynamic clothes, in the cold, under the pressure of millions watching you at home, without starting blocks, not necessarily in a straight line, with others jostling you for the ball, after you've been hacked down several times by bad tackles? In other words, can you replicate this in footballing conditions?

The fact that you, a sprinter, are faster than Rooney in track conditions, means absolutely nothing as sprinters don't become footballers just like that, especially not at Conference level. If you are really quick it doesn't mean you become a footballer.

The assumption you would be a Conference footballer is a false assumption anyway.

Simply put yes, as the conditions are the same for him as for me. Though I do agree with you with zigzag runs and maybe millions watching would mean a chance i would not. HOWEVER, other attributes would account for this for example agility for zigzagging lines and hidden attr. pressure for the 2nd case. Also fatigue would set in much earlier and this would also be another factor.

That doesn't change the fact that my basic PACE attribute would be much higher than Rooney's.

The basic point i am trying to get across is that for some attributes, mainly physical, the odd (but rare) BSP players should have an attribute that is as high as the top EPL players earning a fortune- Of course, the rest of their attributes may be shockingly bad but i feel that would represent real-life much better.

Edit: Just remembered a perfect real life example. Darren Campbell who got a silver in the 200m at 2000 olympics and gold in 4x100m 2004 olympics played for clubs like Plymouth and Newport County between the ages of 21-23. Knowing the researchers they would probably have given him at most 15-17 for pace i bet

Edgar Davids

The inspiration for my name

He should have had 20 in everything.

He near enough did

Everything was 20!

Still, Seedorf = Davids

Still, Seedorf = Davids

Seedorf was a bit less aggressive though, and didn't use doping.

the scenario you described is irrelevant as it also includes attributes of strength and balance and agility as well as the hidden attribute of consistency and big matches. I find when I play football there is not a single player on the pitch that can match me for pace, and I doubt that Rooney would be faster than me in a burst to the ball over 20m.

However he would probably win the ball due to his better aggression, detemrination, strength, bravery, balance etc...

Yes, because park football is clearly the most relevant scenario in Football Manager?

The attributes aren't given based on one limited experiment (for the very same reason the likes of Pace and Acceleration aren't given based on silly "who's the fastest" ads you see on newspapers). Nor would I really underestimate Rooney's pace when adrenaline kicks in, as demonstrated by his goal against Arsenal on the counter-attack (as well as various goals with Ronaldo a few years back). It's an overall view of his pace in professional footballing conditions.

Simply put yes, as the conditions are the same for him as for me. Though I do agree with you with zigzag runs and maybe millions watching would mean a chance i would not. HOWEVER, other attributes would account for this for example agility for zigzagging lines and hidden attr. pressure for the 2nd case. Also fatigue would set in much earlier and this would also be another factor.

That doesn't change the fact that my basic PACE attribute would be much higher than Rooney's.

The basic point i am trying to get across is that for some attributes, mainly physical, the odd (but rare) BSP players should have an attribute that is as high as the top EPL players earning a fortune- Of course, the rest of their attributes may be shockingly bad but i feel that would represent real-life much better.

Edit: Just remembered a perfect real life example. Darren Campbell who got a silver in the 200m at 2000 olympics and gold in 4x100m 2004 olympics played for clubs like Plymouth and Newport County between the ages of 21-23. Knowing the researchers they would probably have given him at most 15-17 for pace i bet

Conjecture really, Darren Campbell worked on his athletics for at least a year. Theo Walcott and Gael Clichy have ridiculous 100m times for footballers, but I don't believe either are 20/20 for Pace and Acceleration. It's not like 200m silver medalists are granted 20/20 on merit, because the conditions for football compared with track and field are very different.

Are these sorts of players commonplace at lower levels? There are 6 players in the Blue Square Premier/North/South with Acceleration and Pace over 17. 6, out of the entire Conference!

I do not believe "exaggerated" attributes are any way to go. Someone who is forced to play football at semi-professional level is not really likely to be a really good sprinter because they would be doing athletics full-time if that were the case.