What do you look for? Stats or average rating?

I wondered what everybody looks for primarily when looking at potential new signings. I tend to look at their history, and if they consistantly perform over 7.00 over the past couple of seasons, I look to buy them. Obviously not if they've acchieved it in a vastly inferior league.

But my scouts often advise me to buy players who have really average or poor average ratings, like 6.23, 6.40, 6.32 and I rarely ever go for those players?

I can't say I'm brilliant at the game, so maybe I'm doing it all wrong. I'm stuck in the days of Championship Manager 03-04 where you could pick up consistant 7-8 average ratings from a couple of leagues below, and have them come in to the team and almost always play brilliantly. The Jermaine Darlington's and Martin Drury's etc.

I am trying to pay more attention to stats now. I am often fooled into thinking a player is good because of their high physical attributes and jump on them without noticing a 4 finishing stat on a prospective new striker.

I also am still in the habit from the old Champ Man games of looking almost entirely for good young players for no money and almost never buying anyone over 26.

Anyway, just wondered what people look at most in potential new signings. Maybe all the best 'managers' out there can advise me what are the best things to look for.

I wondered what everybody looks for primarily when looking at potential new signings. I tend to look at their history, and if they consistantly perform over 7.00 over the past couple of seasons, I look to buy them. Obviously not if they've acchieved it in a vastly inferior league.

But my scouts often advise me to buy players who have really average or poor average ratings, like 6.23, 6.40, 6.32 and I rarely ever go for those players?

I can't say I'm brilliant at the game, so maybe I'm doing it all wrong. I'm stuck in the days of Championship Manager 03-04 where you could pick up consistant 7-8 average ratings from a couple of leagues below, and have them come in to the team and almost always play brilliantly. The Jermaine Darlington's and Martin Drury's etc.

I am trying to pay more attention to stats now. I am often fooled into thinking a player is good because of their high physical attributes and jump on them without noticing a 4 finishing stat on a prospective new striker.

I also am still in the habit from the old Champ Man games of looking almost entirely for good young players for no money and almost never buying anyone over 26.

Anyway, just wondered what people look at most in potential new signings. Maybe all the best 'managers' out there can advise me what are the best things to look for.

Scout reports, don't trust my own judgment of attributes and average rating could just be a run of form or a good season.

Attributes and scout reports are all I look at. The way ratings are calculated can be very misleading so I never even bother looking at it outside matches.

Edit:

If a player has low determination, I won't touch him with a barge pole.

Couldn't agree more, well unless they are a kid, can work with that.

If a player has low determination, I won't touch him with a barge pole.

A bit of both really.

I always look at average rating and goals/assists instead of stats. I dont care if a striker is terrible at the attribute "finishing" as long as he scores me some goals and puts up good performances. For example Glen Roberts in FM08 had 8 (i think) in finishing + pretty bad mental attributes, but scored 15+ goals four seasons in a row in tippeligaen (Only 30 games per season) for my IK Start team.

Attributes and scout reports are all I look at. The way ratings are calculated can be very misleading so I never even bother looking at it outside matches.

Edit:

Couldn't agree more, well unless they are a kid, can work with that.

How do you go about this, if I may be so bold to ask?

Well natural development will usually see it go up some, but tutoring is the big factor to raising determination. The way you talk to them can have an impact on the natural development though, riding them about bad performances, praising good, and some team talks depending on their personality.

Well if I am signing a first team player then I look at scout reports, attributes, and personality traits.

I can't always go on average rating especially if the lad is playing for a terrible club or is unhappy in his current situation.

If I am signing a youth prospect I like to look at scout reports and attributes. His personality can be worked on.

when looking at signing a new player I look at everything. I compare his attributes to how he would play in my team and whether he could perform the task, temperament is fairly important too, I want them to 'fit in'. I basically consider everything separately and collectively - if the benefits outweigh the flaws I'll sign them (or try to).

I ignore average ratings completely. Any average player playing for a team winning its division will have decent ratings.

What Porthos said. The player's average rating often depends on how his team's performing and his form. Compare the 2008 Torres with this year's Torres for example. What I look in new players is how well they fit into my tactic according to their attributes.

Btw Porthos, where's Aramis?

I ignore average ratings completely. Any average player playing for a team winning its division will have decent ratings.

Also average ratings and goals are meaningless unless he's playing in a division on full detail. If the games aren't being played out using the match engine no indication of how player will do in real match.

What Porthos said. The player's average rating often depends on how his team's performing and his form. Compare the 2008 Torres with this year's Torres for example. What I look in new players is how well they fit into my tactic according to their attributes.

Btw Porthos, where's Aramis?

Out for 12 months with undisclosed illness.

First and foremost attributes...

Ratings can be misleading and aren't all that reliable even for your own players (those you can judge for yourself) so I would never take them as gospel-truth.

But on the other hand a player with apparently top-notch attributes can turn out being useless due to poor mental traits or just because he doesn't fit in your tactical system... that's just something you can find out by trial and error though

The average rating is a stat. Stats are things like games played, goals scored, assists, pass completion, etc.

Attributes and scout reports for me (although I sometimes ignore the latter if their attributes are good enough)

The star ratings from scouts can be really off sometimes (signed a 15 year old Ghanian with 2.5 star potential according to my scouts, but had 4 star according to my assistant) and their average ratings can be misleading, as they may be playing in a team or role than doesn't play to their strengths.

The match rating can give you a decent view on how consistent the player will be over a season IMO I also take into consideration how that player would play in my team with my players and if his attributes will translate to better stats

The match rating can give you a decent view on how consistent the player will be over a season IMO

No it won't, because unless a player has a flat bad or very good match his rating will automatically be a 6.9 for a win, shows nothing about how well the player did, just that the team won. Not to mention rating is unaffected by cards, poor performances might not be the players fault but just tough competition his team faces, etc, etc.

There are so many reasons why ratings are completely pointless to look at because the system is questionable.

both really, at first its just stats but when i get a few seasons in i look at the ratings to see how they have been doing but if there stats are average and there playing great there still a no go for me as they will probly end up just going back to average form