fans rejoice... we signed a FAT ARSE !!

yep... according to SI that's what future managers will have to announce on every big signing.

i holidayed 10 years into the future to test a pattern that concerned me regarding the players' natural fitness.

in every save i had, most decent newgens had very poor natural fitness, so i decided to check if this is a case of a small sample size or is it actually a problem with the newgen templates.

The test was conducted in two phases, the original database phase and the newgen phase. in each phase i looked at 4 different groups, players with at least 150CA, players with at least 150PA, players with at least 170CA and players with at least 170PA.

in the first phase the search was limited to players aged 17-32 to avoid 16 year old newgens and former greats (because in 10 years no newgen will be over 30 years old), and the 2nd phase the search included only newgens.

the results are as follows:

1) original database:

CA of at least 150: 27/298 players had a natural fitness of 10 or less (9%)

PA of at least 150: 247/1806 players had a natural fitness of 10 or less (13.6%)

CA of at least 170: 4/46 players had a natural fitness of 10 or less (8.6%)

PA of at least 170: 20/211 players had a natural fitness of 10 or less (9.8%, including 9 players aged 28 or more)

2) newgens:

CA of at least 150: 45/131 players had a natural fitness of 10 or less (34.3%)

PA of at least 150: 429/1410 players had a natural fitness of 10 or less (30.4%)

CA of at least 170: 11/28 players had a natural fitness of 10 or less (39.2%)

PA of at least 170: 70/246 players had a natural fitness of 10 or less (28.4%, only 1 player aged 28 or more)

******************************************************************************

the results speak for themselves, future players are fat slobs with jelly instead of muscles (which might be true ).

but seriously, this needs to be looked at so tragic cases like the ones bellow don't happen as often.

hahahaha...nice

it's weird because my team which is made up of newgens have good natural fitness levels in 2020-21

1 - 17

1 - 15

5 - 14

8 - 13

4 - 12

1 - 11

3 - 10 and lower

i'm not saying you're full of it, it's just interesting because i didn't/don't pay much attention to the attribute when i bought/buy these players. maybe i got lucky? i thought there was a problem with the weaker foot because most of my team are either weak or very weak but i guess it explains why it cost relatively little to assemble this young team.

it's weird because my team which is made up of newgens have good natural fitness levels in 2020-21

1 - 17

1 - 15

5 - 14

8 - 13

4 - 12

1 - 11

3 - 10 and lower

i'm not saying you're full of it, it's just interesting because i didn't/don't pay much attention to the attribute when i bought/buy these players. maybe i got lucky? i thought there was a problem with the weaker foot because most of my team are either weak or very weak but i guess it explains why it cost relatively little to assemble this young team.

considering that 2/3 of the 150+CA newgens have a natural fitness of more than 10, i don't expect every team will be filled with low natural fitness players.

it's the fact that the percentage of those players jumped from 9% to 34% is what bugs me.

is there any chance that you can run a similar test on bravery and jumping?

What does natural fitness actually do? It doesn't seem to have adversely affected the regens you displayed above at all. Gilberto Gomes for example played 55 games that season for an 8.06 average rating.

He's obviously not affected by it as he's clearly not missed any games through injury nor has his condition dropped dramatically.

Natural fitness I guess to mean how quickly his condition would deteriorate if he were not training. So for example the way Gazza or Ricky Hatton blows up when not training? If so, it's not a very important attribute at all.

Natural fitness is more important than you might think. It affects condition recovering rate (NF of 20 recovers from 60% to 100% in 3 days, while NF of 5 recovers in 6 days). Same with injury. NF 20 recovers from a groin strain in 2-3 weeks; NF 5 recovers in 2 months.

Natural fitness is more important than you might think. It affects condition recovering rate (NF of 20 recovers from 60% to 100% in 3 days, while NF of 5 recovers in 6 days). Same with injury. NF 20 recovers from a groin strain in 2-3 weeks; NF 5 recovers in 2 months.

If that is the case, how come all the players with such a low natural fitness posted above have managed to feature in so many games? 55 games with a NF of 3 for example?

it doesnt seem to have affect those players tho, playing full seasons and having good ratings, i would have thought performances would have dropped if their fitness levels were not good. Does the natural fitness levels affect their ability to recover from injury? I thought that was more tied in with the Physio's could be wrong tho.

What does natural fitness actually do? It doesn't seem to have adversely affected the regens you displayed above at all. Gilberto Gomes for example played 55 games that season for an 8.06 average rating.

He's obviously not affected by it as he's clearly not missed any games through injury nor has his condition dropped dramatically.

Natural fitness I guess to mean how quickly his condition would deteriorate if he were not training. So for example the way Gazza or Ricky Hatton blows up when not training? If so, it's not a very important attribute at all.

natural fitness determines the amount of games the player can play before becoming jaded and in need of a rest, and it also determines how fast and when his physical attributes begin to drop.

the fact that AI managers play players whatever their condition is as long as they are not injured doesn't mean that human players will do so.

i even had problems with a 11/12 natural fitness players late in the season so i can't imagine what a nightmare it would be to keep a 3 natural fitness player not jaded.

not to mention that mr. gilberto will lose all his pace by 28/29.

it doesnt seem to have affect those players tho, playing full seasons and having good ratings, i would have thought performances would have dropped if their fitness levels were not good. Does the natural fitness levels affect their ability to recover from injury? I thought that was more tied in with the Physio's could be wrong tho.

maybe they're in view only league or those with little to no detail.

im going to have a look at this on one of my long saves tonight and see if it does affect them late on in the season i have done 10 seasons now and ive yet to see a single regen be jaded by the end of the season but i havent looked much at natural fitness so ill have a check and see.

is there any chance that you can run a similar test on bravery and jumping?

i checked bravery but i won't do jumping because it really depends a lot on position and its too much work.

1) original database:

CA of at least 150: 35/298 players had bravery of 10 or less (11.7%)

PA of at least 150: 445/1806 players had bravery of 10 or less (24.6%)

CA of at least 170: 3/46 players had bravery of 10 or less (6.5%)

PA of at least 170: 49/211 players had bravery of 10 or less (23.2%)

2) newgens:

CA of at least 150: 55/131 players had bravery of 10 or less (41.9%)

PA of at least 150: 871/1410 players had bravery of 10 or less (61.7%)

CA of at least 170: 10/28 players had bravery of 10 or less (35.7%)

PA of at least 170: 134/246 players had bravery of 10 or less (54.4%)

future players are A LOT less brave than current players

future players are A LOT less brave than current players

Wussies & fatties, if this reflects real life the future of mankind is doomed

Wussies & fatties, if this reflects real life the future of mankind is doomed

too true

thanks baaf it's good to know that my players aren't the only pansies out there.

am i the only one getting players with low natural fitness??

Very good work Baaf...could have done with a graph or pie chart though

Hopefully somebody from SI will have a look at this...because this obviously isn't just your opinion...and the math doesn't lie.

I'm still on FM10 in 2026/27 and have seen the same thing. Many of the top regens have poor natural fitness and low bravery. Looks like this trend continued into FM11.

Wussies & fatties, if this reflects real life the future of mankind is doomed

well said:p

Kudos to you, baaf!

Consistently low natural Fitness, and generally speaking, physical stats (like Strength and Stamina) have been plaguing newgens in so many incarnations of the game [basically since the whole idea of newgens was introduced...], and while there have been slight improvements we're still far from a satisfying level.

The most common excuse (along with the ludicrous "it's only ONE save out of many thousands... it proves nothing") is that the original database is too well-rounded, basically implying the researchers have vastly overrated the majority of the players in the game...

And while there might be a bit of true in that, I maintain the newgens are horribly unbalanced and usually with at least one major flaw that would make them worse than their equivalent in the original db.

BTW, seeing you have a good data pool, could you please give me the values for Positioning and Off the Ball, even better if combined?

In my few long saves I've noticed plenty of otherwise brilliant players having atrocious ratings for those two skills, as if they were inherently unable to find their place on a football pitch.

Natural fitness is more important than you might think. It affects condition recovering rate (NF of 20 recovers from 60% to 100% in 3 days, while NF of 5 recovers in 6 days). Same with injury. NF 20 recovers from a groin strain in 2-3 weeks; NF 5 recovers in 2 months.

Where did you get those figures?

Very good work Baaf...could have done with a graph or pie chart though

There was one, but it "mysteriously disappeared" around all these unfit players...

Where did you get those figures?

They're not exact numbers, just hypothetical examples. Injury recovery rate is also affected by the physio's ability, which I don't know exactly how it works in yet. Similarly, condition recovery is affected by match fitness; low match fitness means longer recovery to 100%.

If that is the case, how come all the players with such a low natural fitness posted above have managed to feature in so many games? 55 games with a NF of 3 for example?

They're defenders and goalkeepers, who use less stamina in a game. If you look at the attacking midfielder, he plays only 19 games and has a Stamina attribute of 19 and Strength of 18, which means his condition drops less.

EDIT: at second look, it seems that the game counteracted the low Natural Fitness by giving those newgens very high Stamina and Strength.

something to note. they kinda weigh heavy don't they? 80-90kg+

Ive also noticed this.

Along with the newgen strikers all being 6' 4" ish with corner attributes of 16+, but centre half newgens being 5'10" ish and jumping of 8-10.

I'm in 2030 now, in Portugal, and it seems to be the same for me.

Natural Fitness is pretty low all over for newgens.

Thought maybe it could be because i was in Portugal, so i haven't really thought too hard about it concerning other nationalities.

But it seems like it might be a common thing.

Ive also noticed this.

Along with the newgen strikers all being 6' 4" ish with corner attributes of 16+, but centre half newgens being 5'10" ish and jumping of 8-10.

I second this point. Almost all non-defensive wonderkids have ridiculously high set piece attributes. It's really frustrating because those CA could have gone to more important attributes like Bravery, Flair, Natural Fitness, and Determination. After all you don't need a bunch of strikers to take corner.

Excellent analysis!

Unfortunately since noone in SI has commented and fairly sure it's too late to make it into the patch, it'll be a wasted effort.

Hopefully I'm wrong!

i ran a quick - i say quick but it took me a couple of minutes to figure out how to use fmrte- scan and found the same thing baaf. i did it on ca only - unlimited pa - and divided it into 5 categories 100-120, 121-140, etc

beginning vs regens only (2021) 10 NF or less (all increases)

100-120 = 11%

121-140 = 11%

141-160 = 7%

161-180 = 5%

181-200 = 18% - should be noted that all 7 players in original database had NF of 11+. in 2021 7 have NF of 11+ while 2 have less than 10 they account for the 18%

if you look at the database in 2021 without excluding the real players it comes close so maybe the game tries to balance things out whenever it creates newgens?

- my original post had the data but i don't know how to add a table i made in excel here without it merging into 1 big blob of numbers.

i checked positioning and off the ball but with different criteria. because those 2 are very position dependent, i split each group of CA (150 and 170) into GK/DF/ATT and came with results for each group rather than collective CA results. and lastly, the breaking point moved from 10 or less to 14 or less.

original database:

CA of at least 150 (27 GK, 76 DF, 195 ATT):

78/195 of attacking players had an off the ball stat of 14 or less (40%)

158/195 of attacking players had a positioning of 14 or less (81%)

62/76 of defensive players had an off the ball of 14 or less (81.5%)

28/76 of defensive players had a positioning of 14 or less (36.8%)

27/27 of GK had an off the ball of 14 or less (100%)

6/27 of GK had a positioning of 14 or less (22.2%)

CA of at least 170 (6 GK, 12 DF, 28 ATT):

3/28 of attacking players had an off the ball stat of 14 or less (10.7%)

22/28 of attacking players had a positioning of 14 or less (78.5%)

7/12 of defensive players had an off the ball of 14 or less (58.3%)

4/12 of defensive players had a positioning of 14 or less (33.3%)

6/6 of GK had an off the ball of 14 or less (100%)

0/6 of GK had a positioning of 14 or less (0%)

newgen:

CA of at least 150 (23 GK, 61 DF, 47 ATT):

25/47 of attacking players had an off the ball stat of 14 or less (53.1%)

45/47 of attacking players had a positioning of 14 or less (95.7%)

58/61 of defensive players had an off the ball of 14 or less (95%)

35/61 of defensive players had a positioning of 14 or less (57.3%)

23/23 of GK had an off the ball of 14 or less (100%)

3/23 of GK had a positioning of 14 or less (13%)

CA of at least 170 (6 GK, 12 DF, 10 ATT):

6/10 of attacking players had an off the ball stat of 14 or less (60%)

9/10 of attacking players had a positioning of 14 or less (90%)

11/12 of defensive players had an off the ball of 14 or less (91.6%)

2/12 of defensive players had a positioning of 14 or less (16.6%)

6/6 of GK had an off the ball of 14 or less (100%)

0/6 of GK had a positioning of 14 or less (0%)

*********************************************************************

it seems that newgen attacking players are generally worse in off the ball, and the gap widens the better the players are.

average newgen defensive players are worse in positioning than real players, but the top ones are better at it than real players.

SI are looking at the low bravery after acknowledging it was an issue in another thread.

Several attributes don't use CA points Bravery, Aggression, possibly natural fitness and some others. Although the frequency of the values of these attributes remain consistent between the dB and the newgens there is no link between CA and the value of these attributes.

In the original dB there might be 20'000 players with Natural fitness below 9, 75% of them will have a CA below 100. In an all newgen Save 20'000 players will have NF below 9 but they will be spread across the CA spectrum.

Baaf Please post this to in the bugs Forum. SI took a lot of convincing to give the Newgens a revamp after FM10 and the kind of statistical analysis you have provided Is what they want.

FM11 has the best newgens so far hopefully FM12 will finally fix the issue.

The future of football...

The future of football...

That would be hilarious, at first anyway