Attribute Breakdown

I have a question - I apologise if it's been asked before, but I hope somebody can answer it nonetheless.

So, how do attributes break down in the game?

For example, this is what I mean:

If a player has an attribute rating of...

19-20: Player is quality at this attribute.

17-18: Player is very good at this attribute.

etc etc.

I'm obviously aware that better players will have better attributes, but when the researchers of SI evaluate players to determine their attributes, how do they break it down? How do they know that, for example, Player A's finishing is 18, not 17 or 19, or if his teamwork is specifically 13, not 12 or 14? This can of course apply to any attribute for any player.

What I'm asking is, do the researchers think, when looking at a player (if indeed that's how it's done - I've actually got no idea!), "He looks pretty agile, I'll give him 16", or do they have some sort of breakdown of specifically what to give a player for each attribute?

Once again, I apologise if it has been asked before, but I'm very curious to know how these attributes are applied from real life to the game.

Thanks in advance.

I get the following impression:

10 = "Average" (across all tiers)

11-12 = "Above average"

13-14 = "Good"

15-17 = "Very good"

18-19 = "Excellent"

20 = Lionel Messi

This maybe a short answer - but the researchers give a subjective viewpoint - not perfect but they do a good job - and the researchers give up their free time to do this with no finanical reward. And the attributes scale is numerical based - so it does what it says on the tin. But like you say - you could break it down if you wanted to into whatever criteria you wanted - from superb to terrible and everything inbetween.

what x42bn6 is pretty close, could post alot more on it but you will be asleep by the end of it.

There are criteria for some stats though, for example if a player is a certain height they should have between X and Y for heading/jumping etc

Thanks for the replies.

I'm similarly confused, especially since starting with a lower league squad with most stats less than 13 or 14. How much better is 13 off the ball than 12, for instance? Even some of my worst passers with ratings of 5 and 6 seem capable of making 30 yard one touch passes regularly. One of my best players has a passing rating of 2. Why is a guy with 15 strength getting injured by a guy with 10 strength?

I'm similarly confused, especially since starting with a lower league squad with most stats less than 13 or 14. How much better is 13 off the ball than 12, for instance? Even some of my worst passers with ratings of 5 and 6 seem capable of making 30 yard one touch passes regularly. One of my best players has a passing rating of 2. Why is a guy with 15 strength getting injured by a guy with 10 strength?

Just because someone's strength is higher, doesn't mean they are invincible from being injured by someone with less strength, it's not like they duke it out on the pitch! Injuries come about from things like late / dangerous tackles from behind, and even the weakest players are capable of making these.

Having a rating of 5 or 6 doesn't mean you won't be able to do something very well. Firstly, many attributes work in tandem with each other- for example, technique makes to generally better at pulling off most thinks, mental skills have some overlap, and so on.

As for how we decide. For one most (all?) named team researchers will be a supporter of that club they research, wuill see their players (not to mention players of the other teams in their league) and make a mental comparison. Sadly sometimes we cannot find researchers so read on to find out what we do then

Then once done we compare with the rest of the team (have MSN meetings) decide what should be upped, lowered etc. comparing it with the whole Nation, and then if need be another nations league. A fair bit of discussion goes on inner Nations (like we'll discuss Scottish Data over and over, just say sometimes if it was over beers a few bottles may be smashed ) but then we'll discuss the wider world with other researchers. Alot of disgreeing, and agreeing before we finally decide on what is what...