How do you decide who you buy?

AS of late I have been thinking over the way I make purchases on fm and wondering how others go about spending clubs money.

I accept that because we can't see players physically train they require a statistical front; I accept that side attributes like morale and form may also influence a players game. Hidden attributes such as a players happiness may also play a part?

However for me my purchases have always swayed on what a scout says and what I decide in player to player statistical comparisons - however this makes the game far too black and white.

For instance, comparing Eduardo (Arsenal) with Kevin Doyle (Wolves) shows me that bar aerial and defensively, Eduardo is superior. However, in my save Doyle is in sensational form with 6 goals in 6 games and an average rating of 7.72, Eduardo isn't doing too bad with 2 goals in 3 starts and 2 substitution appearances and an average rating of 7.

However my point is do any of you make any purchases based on historical goal scoring? Do you look for a 2:1 ratio striker in his past? Do you look for someone - come the end of the season maybe for more relevance - who has a high average rating? Or do you just base it on the players technical, mental and physical stats?

The reason I ask is in a game would it ever be beneficial to take a punt on a random player who has a good season? Let's say for example Kevin Nolan (Newc) has a blinding season, come May/June the following year would you consider purchasing him if you were playing as Chelsea, Man Utd, Spurs, Liverpool, Arsenal et cetera.

Does the game compensate for random successes? Darren Bent (Sunderland) could be a real life example - he always had the historical record (31 goals in 61 appearances in the premier for Charlton, 18 in 60 appearances for Spurs fm informs me) but would anyone consider punting a bid on Bent like Steve Bruce did?

Has anyone spent a fair bit of money on a random flop who had one good year?

A real life situation of a purchase against the statisitcs could be that of Yossi Benayoun to Chelsea, in game I would never even dream of him being strong enough for the chelsea mid yet IRL chelsea take that punt - in game it would seem pointless imo?

I generally don't sign players soley based on their historical record in the game but it is a factor I consider. For example if I want to sign a striker, I check out the ones that my scouts have recommended and based on their attributes I pick out the most suitable ones. Then I may look at each of the player's form over the last season or two. If it is below average then I'll see if there is a reason why. For example, are they unhappy, playing out of position, in a bad team or whatever. I only check the basic things like that. If I can't find a reason then I will favour some of my other targets over them.

You have to be realistic with players. Kevin Nolan for example is not a player that is good enough for the top sides. Period. Although he may have a great season with his side, that could be due to the fact that his manager gets the very best out of him. That's to say you could do the same.

I buy players based on attributes of course, and attempt to get the best out of them. Now although Darren Bent may bag a lot of goals because of his pace, he may not contribute anything else towards the team. Rooney on the otherhand, is very hard working and very intellectual in a footballing sense which brings more to my team than 'just goals'.

You have to be very careful when it comes to buying players from other leagues. The Scottish league for example is not up to standard campared to the EPL. A player may destroy the SPL, while he may find it hard to get the same form in the EPL

I mainly just go with what the scout report says. If my scout reckons that he is better than one of my current players or is going to get better than 9 times out of 10 i usually make the offer.

I look at their attributes.

I don't even bother looking at their statistics because their statistics will be completely different with my side

Scouts don't know what they are talking about tbh

Seeing as consistency is by far the most important attribute (it shows how often a player plays to his full CA). If he performs above his visible atts suggest it may be an indication of good hidden ones such as consistency. = Scout, then maybe sign.

I tend to look at the key attributes for the positions I need. I send scouts everywhere and the finally look at things like stats and injury histories.

1) Attributes must fit the role I buy him for

2) Scout reports are VITAL to find out eventual hidden weaknesses [when a scout says "X is an inconsistent performer", "X is fairly subsceptible to injuries" and "X is a selfish player", then it's an automatic no-no for me]

3) Mental and physical skills > technical prowess. Sure, a 18 Flair and Finishing AMC can be great, but if he has 6 OTB, 7 Positioning and 8 Natural Fitness and Stamina, odds are he will be useless, despite all his class, around the one hour mark...

This gets even more important when Newgens start to be more than original db players...

All in all I always look for "symmetric/regular octagons"... I'd rather have a less great player but without major flaws.

First thing I look at is the report from my 20/20 coach. If he reports that Player X can be just as good/better than my best player at a position, I'll give the player a hard look. I mainly look for the attributes that fit my system of play.

I play a certain way, and if a player doesnt fit my formation, he doesnt get bought. If I've found a selection of guys who will play the position I want, it all comes down to attributes, with Natural Fitness and Stamina being big ones in my book

What i tend to do is send scouts out for the position i am looking for, then when they find someone who looks like he might fit the bill, i send 5 coaches to look over hm before i make the final decision to sign or not.

Generally I will choose the player with the higher attributes that suit the role I'm looking to fill. If it's a toss up between two players to choose from then I normally look at their historical attributes to make a decision.

First I filter players by attributes, then I scout them to find out about their character and weaknesses (scout report). If I'm after talents I also avoid players who 'aren't likely to improve in the future'. I usually only buy players if I can have them for a rather small fee (not more than 5 mil).

I tend to go for players that always seem to play well I mean I have brought big named great attitrubtes players but I haven't got all of them performing I will buy a league below me if I believe he will put in the performances! This sounds stupid I know but it seem's to work well with me! And I get good results!!

I tend to go for players that always seem to play well I mean I have brought big named great attitrubtes players but I haven't got all of them performing I will buy a league below me if I believe he will put in the performances! This sounds stupid I know but it seem's to work well with me! And I get good results!!

Interesting as this would mix up the black and white affair of fm purchases - but what makes you think he will put in the performances being a league below? There are plenty of examples IRL but is there anything you look for in particular when selecting these better lower league players?

Interestingly so I have just browsed a couple of players and found Asamoah Gyan and Djibril Cisse to be similar style players to Theo Walcott (obvs age differing and Theo may have a greater PA but I don't really look too much into that when deciding on my purchases - unless I am specifically purchasing young talent).

I like to look at his previous form and also I sent one of my scouts or ass. manager to have a look at him to get a 2nd opinion.

1) Attributes must fit the role I buy him for

2) Scout reports are VITAL to find out eventual hidden weaknesses [when a scout says "X is an inconsistent performer", "X is fairly subsceptible to injuries" and "X is a selfish player", then it's an automatic no-no for me]

3) Mental and physical skills > technical prowess. Sure, a 18 Flair and Finishing AMC can be great, but if he has 6 OTB, 7 Positioning and 8 Natural Fitness and Stamina, odds are he will be useless, despite all his class, around the one hour mark...

This gets even more important when Newgens start to be more than original db players...

All in all I always look for "symmetric/regular octagons"... I'd rather have a less great player but without major flaws.

Without a doubt, this is the way to go about it.

i used to be guilty of only wanting to sign strikers who can bag a goal a game and goalies who wouldnt let much in, etc. of course i used to forget there is much more important things than just that. i was also guilty of using player search to decide who i would like to sign. find those with the best attributes and then just sign them. of course things would then go wrong as i would forget all the other things that are needed to make a team successful.

now i spend all season sending scouts out to different countries and international tournaments. generally i look for under 25s to give me a long term signing but willing to give anything a shot if they look the part. for instance i found a defender in the brazilian 2nd division who cost me 8m. he was 5 stars on my coach reports and was a bargain. 2 seasons later at 28 i have sold him for 22m (he moaned too much for my liking lol). would i have come upon this player on the search? probably not. then i also look on player stats for top divisions. scout those who score loads of goals, assists, got a high pass or tackle rate etc. its amazing what you can find. attributes are i thing but if you get a scout report giving a player 3 stars and you can see he does the job you want him to do then thats surely what you need? if i say want a defensive midfielder then im looking for a player with a high passing and tacking rate.

its also fair to say though i look at my own players to see what they are actually doing. my new striker last season got 19 goals in 32 games. yes a good enough record. but they i looked and saw his passing above 80%, his average rating easily over 7, 11 assists. 19 goals + 11 assists means hes helped contribute 30 in 32 which then looks excellent in my opinion. if i looked at the stats and saw a player wasnt doing the job i want him to do then its probably best i dont keep him and go for someone who will do it

I look at a players attributes first, then take a look at their past records.

I also mainly purchase on scout reports and comparing players, but do take form into account on occasions.

If your a top club like Man Utd, generally the scout reports are very accurate due to the quality of the scouts.

I was United once a came across a 23 year old striker who was scoring 30+ goals a season for a club in a lower European league. The scouts told me he would be 2 stars with potential of 2 and a half. I took a punt and bought him for 10 million. Kept him for 4 seasons, great work rate and team player, but only managed on average 5 goals a season! I like to think we formed a good relationship though

I scout extensively and take a good hard look at anyone who will become a leading premier league (Whichever Position). I only scout for young talents since I will hate to pay more than 10 mil for a player. Then I check for obvious weakness like some sort of horrible personality, or prone to injuries or inconsistency, selfish etc. I tend to favour driven, ambitious players with high determination. So long their key attributes aren't too off the mark for their position, I will generally buy them and pray hard they will start to develop into that wonderkid or world class player.

Just something for people to ponder (and hopefully help me in discovering the answer to)

Djibril Cisse vs Theo Walcott...

They both play the same position.

The hexagon stats favour Cisse.

However a report from the same coach tells me that Cisse is a 2 1/2 star, Walcott a 3 star - with Walcott being greater recommended than Cisse. This despite Cisse having better stats.

So if we are shopping on stats, Cisse is better but if I am listening to my staff, Walcott is better than Cisse?? Confused :-/