Player Development is a sham

I've played FM since 06 and have alway's gone with a lower league club (apart from once winning everything with Juve) in the hopes of pulling them up into the top division (I nearly did it with Grimsby once but after three seasons in the championship and a stadium <10000 money was a problem and I just took the place Everton offered).

I've always played with a carefully managed coaching staff (4+ stars whatever the division) and have always gone for youth over experience.

I always assumed that promising youngsters hardly developed because my training facilities weren't up to scratch but...

Having skipped 09/10 I started with Southampton (myhome town) on 11.0 and worked my way into the Prem where, with an average age of 22, we have managed top half finishes for the first two seasons (mainly because most of the teams here are championship standard, which was dissappointing), a league cup win (thanks to Chelsea playing a B team in the semi and Liverpool going a man down after 15' in the final) and are currentlyin the 1st knockout round of the EC.

So, for the first time, I thought I'd check out the community and see what other people's tactics and training was like, see if there was anything I'd miissed over the years.

And then I come across Potential Ability.

This cheapskate idea for managing numbers of quality players has ruined my game and i will not be buying another FM until it's fixed.

Case in point:

Mamdou M'Baye

At 17 this regen was southampton's first choice playmaker with passing+creativity 17, plus good tackling plus good technique plus good finishing, plus being a 6'7" French-Senegalese with physical oomph I thought he would be the next Xabi Alonso.

Heck Man U were interested in making him the next Carrick. Oh yeah and I paid aging Lampard >£1.5M just to tutor him

Mamadou is now nearly 19 and has put in 7.07 this last half season, but he's also stopped growing. So, having just come acroos this PA idea I decided to check his out and find out why.

CA 146 PA 150 (the lowest of all my young signings - ridiculous as he's the only one to break into the squad).

I can only think of one youngster to have been a Premiership playmaker before he was 20 and now we call him Cesc

So, WTF? some ridiculous pre-determined value means that he can never be great? he (and my young CB) will never have any real footballing intelligence no matter how well/often they play nor the quality of their training? Despite having solid stats for determination, work rate and (as i'm now aware) ambition and professionalism.

The last 2.5 seasons in the Premiership have seens his AR's gor from 6.76 to 6.91 to 7.07 and he will never get any better.

Now I could understand if there were some interesting mechanics behind this like his being too much of a turd to his teammates (which he is) or his being over-hyped or over-pressured or over-injured or whatever, but instead he's just hit his level cap. Bull Shirt.

I've spent thousands of hours trying to grown hundreds of young players and it's always just been a hidden Random Number barring their way.

Shame on you Sports Aren't Interactive

Shame on your lack of imagination, shame on your quick fix cheap and nasty player growth:

THE MOST REWARDING PART OF THE GAME IS A SHAM

I will not be buying another SI FM game till this is changed.

If anyone has knows of a dynamic PA add-on please let me know.

Thanks for your time

150 PA means he is a good PL/leading PL player. Until the rest of your team have more stars than him, there is no reason to get rid of him even though his ability isn't the greatest. CA/PA have absolutely no relevance to how well he plays for your team.

A cute idea I have (that cannot be verified) is that PA is multiplied with his Player Attributes to determine his true ability related to other players. So a player with 20 in Tackling and 100 in CA is just as good as a player with 10 in Tackling and 200 in PA when it comes to taking the ball from an opponent.

Therefore, don't look only at ability, but be equally focused on player attributes.

I find it strange that you haven't figured out what the difference between a 3-star PA youngster and a 4-star PA youngster really is in game-terms. If the game says he could develop to a good CH player, that is as good as he will possibly become given that absolutely everything goes perfectly right! Haven't you read this?

Too much importance is placed on PA on these forums. Players can perform well and not have a high CA/PA. It's an under the hood thing and if you don't actively search it out then it doesn't really matter surely? Every player is going to have their limit whether you train them or not (although we can and have had discussions about the mental/physical side being more changeable). This player you're talking about sounds like he's performing well as well so what is the problem?

Also PA has been in FM for years. It's not exactly a new thing.

sorry but there won't be a random pa add-on out there it would require changing the game code. All you could do is change a lot of PAs to -1,-2,-3 etc in the editor, this will initialize them to a different number within a certain range each time you start a save, so at least you don't know how far they can develop, i know thats not what you are looking for but theres not a lot else you can do.

Everyone has limits.

Every year the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool etc release players - Why do you think this is?

Everyone has limits.

Every year the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool etc release players - Why do you think this is?

have to agree with this, most human beings wouldn't make passable premiership players with the best training, or 100m sprinters or quantum physics theorists etc, we all have natural limits and pa reflects this, imo few players should reach this in game only in perfect conditions.

Look at his position specific ratings rather than his general PA.

I see your frustration, but in truth progress and development don't work like a straight line always going up...

Your newgen is one of those "early peakers" who look like world-beaters in the making but somehow flatline, albeit at good/high level, sooner than expected.

Plenty of names that sort of fit in this category... some had their career going down fast (when better clubs stopped trying with them), some just settled down in a relatively good career but not as great as expected when they were 18...

Van der Vaart, Portillo, Dalla Bona, Montolivo, Aquilani... and pretty much every "new Maradona" or "new Brazilian" youngster who failed to step up his game.

Just because none of those has managed to turn into World Class material (some still have a couple of years left) that doesn't mean they're useless (personally I think Montolivo is, but that's just me...) or that their managers/coaches dropped the ball with their development.

Some guys will never grow an inch after 9th grade, some girls will never grow adult-size boobs (and will likely use BoobRTE to get a boost ), some footballers are as good as they'll ever get a age 20.

i can understand not having the physical capability to play like messi, I can understand limits for people, that's fine , though i would argue (not at 1:30am) that those limits should be changeable, not restricted by birth.

he's a 3* player according to my assman, with 4.5* potential (assman is 15/15 judge) does this mean there is the potential for growth that has not shown itself recently, which Genie doesn't recognise?

seriously? noone recognises that by having a static birthright PA value the whole idea of nurturing your young players is pointless; you'll never have any impact on how good someone can be?

I see your frustration, but in truth progress and development don't work like a straight line always going up...

Your newgen is one of those "early peakers" who look like world-beaters in the making but somehow flatline, albeit at good/high level, sooner than expected.

Plenty of names that sort of fit in this category... some had their career going down fast (when better clubs stopped trying with them), some just settled down in a relatively good career but not as great as expected when they were 18...

Van der Vaart, Portillo, Dalla Bona, Montolivo, Aquilani... and pretty much every "new Maradona" or "new Brazilian" youngster who failed to step up his game.

Just because none of those has managed to turn into World Class material (some still have a couple of years left) that doesn't mean they're useless (personally I think Montolivo is, but that's just me...) or that their managers/coaches dropped the ball with their development.

Some guys will never grow an inch after 9th grade, some girls will never grow adult-size boobs (and will likely use BoobRTE to get a boost ), some footballers are as good as they'll ever get a age 20.

absol.utely right, but you do mention that managers had to drop the ball with their development, whereas in FM atm there never was any ball in the first place, we're just hoodwinked into thinking there is one

i can understand not having the physical capability to play like messi, I can understand limits for people, that's fine , though i would argue (not at 1:30am) that those limits should be changeable, not restricted by birth.

he's a 3* player according to my assman, with 4.5* potential (assman is 15/15 judge) does this mean there is the potential for growth that has not shown itself recently, which Genie doesn't recognise?

seriously? noone recognises that by having a static birthright PA value the whole idea of nurturing your young players is pointless; you'll never have any impact on how good someone can be?

Noone can have an impact on how good someone can be at anything in real life. However, there are lots of things that impact whether you can actually reach your innate potential, amongst them your teachers/coaches. Thus there is not either/or genetics/upbringing but both. Not either/or determinism/free will, but both.

If your regen is 3 star with potential 4.5 at the age of 19, the stagnation is probably not permanent. Maybe he won't reach 4,5 but 4 is definitely possible if he continues to play well. However, what a 3-star is and 4.5 star is, depends on the rest of your team. That guy can probably become a leading PL player, maybe continental reputation (if you are in the PL now?)

You're wrong: you have -every- impact on how good a player can be, as long as the material you start with is good enough. Generally, a youth player with great potential should have at least one star to begin with to be worth the effort (of strengthening your team in 3-4 years time), because improving more than 3 stars is extremely rare if even possible. I personally find it satisfying enough to develop players that become good enough to enjoy a career in the nation's top league... they are kind of my players even though they at some point didn't quite cut it.

A cute idea I have (that cannot be verified) is that PA is multiplied with his Player Attributes to determine his true ability related to other players. So a player with 20 in Tackling and 100 in CA is just as good as a player with 10 in Tackling and 200 in PA when it comes to taking the ball from an opponent.

I like your theory but its really demoralizing when you think you've found a player with good stats for his position and the scout report gives his future potential 1-2 stars.

If he has these standout attributes at a young age then why shouldn't he be a future star. Its a game so lets assume he is not going to let the fame go to his head.

Maybe its scout reports need looked at because i ditch players with less than 3 stars, 2.5 are ok.

Noone can have an impact on how good someone can be at anything in real life.

Sorry to be blunt but that is the toshest pile of codswollop I have ever did. As an example: I do not understand differentiation; my teacher sits down with me and now i do. Did i have innanate potential before my teacher sat down with me? no (in that it's not possible to really understand that abstract nonsense anyway). Is it because of my teacher that I am able to work with an idea that meant nothing to me yesterday? absolutely. did my teacher have an impact on my CA (at maths) yes.

You are right that it is both IRL but atm in FM all there is is an eventual upper limit, which is ridiculous

I doubt my regen can reach even 3.5* ratings if there's only 4 points of PA left for him to use.

Let's see what happens

If you didn't know the PA this wouldn't be a problem.

The game is so much more fun - and so much more realistic - if played as it's meant to be.

Every player in real life has a set potential, the PA number in-game is the best way of representing this.

The development model (how a player reaches his PA) still needs a little bit of work, but it's much better in this version than it's ever been before.

I like your theory but its really demoralizing when you think you've found a player with good stats for his position and the scout report gives his future potential 1-2 stars.

If he has these standout attributes at a young age then why shouldn't he be a future star. Its a game so lets assume he is not going to let the fame go to his head.

Maybe its scout reports need looked at because i ditch players with less than 3 stars, 2.5 are ok.

Yup - scout reports need completely redesigning.

There used to be (may still be) a bit of code in the game that the AI uses to decide which status to give each youth player (hot prospect, youngster, backup), whether to transfer them or list them for loan* etc

If this was developed to include a player's performance at each level of football and then plugged into the scout module, it would be a much better result.

*involves current ability of player, quality of training facilities at club etc

"Player development is a sham"

I don't think so. I think your looking at it the wrong way. Your player, whilst young, has reached his potential, well almost. Many, if not most, players will not come close to their PA. And that's for various reasons from mentality right through to injury. Training facilities are only a small part of the big picture. Look at it this way, your player has done well and as all humans have, he has an innate natural limitation. Which can be slightly varied through life skills and experiences. But not varied in any significant way.

Your example of of the school teacher is a good one. Let's say you are a student with a PA of 150. And say your learning maths. If you studied on your own with good resources you might only achieve a max CA of 100, due to whatever, stubborness, laziness, poor reading skills ... etc. But, with the teacher, you might reach 125. Then maybe you get a tutor, you might reach 140. To reach 150, it just comes down to experience and life skills.

Yes, perhaps the idea of a fixed PA is unnatural in real terms, but it is a game and the game needs to create an artificial development pathway . Artificial being the key word.

Sure the fixed PA is not perfect, but I seriously doubt a dynamic PA would help overall. In fact, I think while it would solve your problem, it would create a myriad of new problems.

I know how you feel mate. I've signed players in the past who looked like they would develop into top players but never do.

I had a kid who averaged a over a 7 in more than 10 appearances for me in the first team when he was 16.

That was the best season he had for me...fast forward to when he is 19, he has not averaged higher than 6.6 for me and hasn't developed even though he has had the best coaches and has been tutored by the best players and even got some match experience on loan.

Some players just don't develop.

I agree that this is one of the most rewarding parts of the game. But it is also the riskiest.

What's wrong with that?

Francis Jeffers and co were leading Premier League players in their late teens and now he's a nobody. Sometimes players become as good as they're going to get young, it happens.

Too much attention is put on PA. If you don't like it, don't look, especially as you're not meant to! Its part of the game world and it leads to very realistic situations.

It is very interesting to read the perspective of someone who has played the game for a long time but never logged onto these forums, thanks for your insight and you bring up points I never really considered.

It should be risky, it should be that only a handful of players can develop into greats, but going back to mamadou's case study, why is there nothing to nurture? this isn't a striker needing a killer instinct and the carefully managed confidence that unlines such, but a midfielder who only needs to work on his composure and decisions, but who is stymied simply by predetermined barriers, all I'm asking is that he be able to grow by a point a season in these attributes (which I doubt is unrealistic for a well trained CM at an EPL side). Because of the inhumanly turgid development process he's trapped as a genius ******. A 6'7" ******.

Look at rooney, he is not a clever man but he's been nurtured by his manager so that his natural drive is channelled into ahh I'm too drunk

Which again is simulated in game with the use of the tutoring module and targeted training.

wow a word for being backward in the brainbox is ****************red out here, funny

No It is not simulated in tutoring or training because there is nothing to spend on his education.

I simply cannot believe that an 18yr old cannot learn anything new. It is completely counter intuitive.

Using the tutoring model you can change his personality which makes him more likely to reach his potential.

You can also direct his development focus and train in PPMs which make the most of the potential he has.

If this was the case then sign me to Manchester United, train me at the best level with the best coaches and in a few years I'll be as good as Wayne Rooney.

Franny Jeffers is about the perfect example. Teenager, signed for Arsenal, tutored by Thierry Henry, never improved. In his teens he looked like he was on the brink of greatness, but he never could take those extra couple of steps. He just didn't have it in him.

Or Michael Owen. A player that peaked early, stopped improving, then actually declined due to repeated injuries. At 18-19 he must have thought he could go on to be the best ever. Instead those were his best years.

Your young midfielder excelled early on, has almost hit his peak, and unfortunately will never be able to take those extra couple of steps and become Cesc Fabregas. From the sound of things he's a useful premiership play maker though, and should serve you well until you are consistently challenging for the Champions League and title. At that point either keep him as a loyal backup or let him move on at a profit.

You say you can't affect players' development - but you already have, almost as much as you can - so well done.

Think of Freddy Adu.

A very talented youngster (Say his CA was 110 at 15) unfortunately, he didn't get any better, so his PA now is still at that level.

a PA of 150 is very very good, easily good enough to hold his own in the champs league. He might not become the worlds best players, but not everyone will.

Dont ruin the fantasy by looking at things you were not suppose too.

I dont use ca/pa really much at all, I actually go for their Attributes. In the passed I've seen players with better attributes in their profile with a lower PA than my start Attacking Midfielder. Sure its nice to have a Superstar Midfielder with a PA of 195 but i check out their current attributes and get my assistant manager to write up a report on any potential transfer.

If he has 4 stars or more and has very good attributes, I will go for him in a heartbeat.

I've got to the point in my game where no player is given 4 star potential.

Pretty much everyone is 3 stars or less. Makes it very difficult to judge players. I've only seen one player in the last 4 seasons with a 3.5 potential.

Honestly I don't see the issue with a 18yo being "done" in terms of development...

"Why can't he grow by a point every season? Because if it was possible he would have 28 in his best attributes by the time he turns 30... If you allow players to get better and better just becasue they perform consistently well and train at top-notch facilities with quality staff, you'll basically be able to turn every half-decent guy into a world class player.

The point is we all have limits. We all have a certain amount of talent for something, and that talent dictates how well we can do things.

To use the student example; some need to sit all day long at their desk just to get a modest C, while others can get Bs and As with just one quick session... So this sort of disproves the "time+effort=results" theory, or at least shows that Talent is a key factor.

But at the same time the gifted student is unlikely to get A+ should he decide to study for 6 hours per day instead of 1, because, going back to the FM world, he can reach his "PA" (or close to it) in a short time.

Same goes for footballers... Some are naturally talented and peak at early age. Some of those keep playing at that level for their whole career, while others just start to decline (or get ditched because they didn't become as great as expected).

Ronaldo was probably at his best when he was 21, and I doubt he could have become much better than he already was, even with an injury-free career.

We shouldn't take PA as the sole measuring stick of a player's ability and potential... Damn, if you have a 18yo who's already able to be a regular at a Top Club you'd be more than happy, and relishing the idea of being well-covered in that position for at least 10 years...

He won't get any better (bar in his mental skills), but if he's good enough already what's the problem?

P.S. About Fabregas, I daresay he hasn't become God-like, while according to the "no PA enthusiasts" he should have turned into the bestest of the world in his role just becuase he has been training and playing at top level.

P.P.S. take Wayne Gretzky, probably the most dominant athlete in the history of any sport... He did have his best season at 25, but it was just marginally better than the ones he had from age 21, and his debut NHL season at age 19 was already unbelievable as well...

So if we had to believe "anyone can get exponentially better because there are no boundaries", Gretzky should have had 300pts seasons by age 25 and 400pts seasons by age 28 before starting to decline.

A cute idea I have (that cannot be verified) is that PA is multiplied with his Player Attributes to determine his true ability related to other players. So a player with 20 in Tackling and 100 in CA is just as good as a player with 10 in Tackling and 200 in PA when it comes to taking the ball from an opponent.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Firstly, it'd be CA it was multiplied by, not PA. Otherwise every high potential kid in the game would be playing first team football even when still way below their peak.

Secondly, it just doesn't work this way. Well, kinda anyway. In a way you are sort of correct...

Winning a tackle isn't just down to tackling. It's down to positioning, anticipation, strength, balance, bravery, concentration, marking and decisions. All of those factors can have an effect on if you win the ball or not. For example, low positioning, marking, anticipation, concentration and decisions will mean that your 20 tackling player just didn't see the other guy coming, panics and thus has a much harder tackle to make, so is less likely to succeed. As a defender's CA will mostly go to these factors, it almost is tackling * CA. In reality it's more Tackling * weighted average of other defending stats depending on situation.

Remember, the same situation as above, but with someone who excels in positioning, marking, anticipation, concentration and decisions will result in a much easier tackle in the first place. so a much lower tackling stat may result in a clean tackle still.

Think of it this way.

CA (or more correctly the general defending stats, which have a heavy weighting in the development system for defenders, and are thus generally in line with CA) decides how hard a tackle the player has to make.

Tackling then decides if it's won.

In the first case we had a high tackling, low CA player, or a player with awful stat distribution. His tackle was a 5* tackle. His 20 tackling means he may win 20% of 5* tackles. I mean, these are TOUGH tackles to pull off.

In the second case we had a low tackling, high CA player, or absolutely perfect stat distribution and medium CA I guess. His tackle was a 1* tackle because he did everything right in the buildup. Even with 10 tackling, 1* tackles are bread and butter stuff really. he'll be winning that ball 90% of the time.

Now you might say that tackling was multiplied by CA there. As a gross oversimplification, it is true. What's actually happening though is CA is controlling the players overall stats. His overall stats are contributing to how difficult a tackle he ends up having to pull off in the first place. so a high CA generally means he has easier tackles to make in general, and will therefore win more than a lower CA player with equal tackling.

If you had two defenders with equal tackling very similar CAs, say a 165 and a 170. If the 165 was a pure defender, all his CA going to those important stats, while the 170 was also a great passer, creative, had an eye for goal and could pull off tricks, the lower CA player would actually win more tackles . Because it isn't CA itself that matters, but the stats it allows.

A good real life example is Kolo Toure in his Arsenal peak. Most of his last gasp, fantastic tackles were a direct result of bad positioning, anticipation and concentration causing him to have to make such a difficult tackling in the first place. His pace, acceleration and tackling made up for it. If he had a "higher CA" and was therefore better at anticipating chances, concentrating and positioning himself he would have been twice the defender he was, never even having to make those difficult tackles (but able to if, say, Messi got away from him).

I've got to the point in my game where no player is given 4 star potential.

Pretty much everyone is 3 stars or less. Makes it very difficult to judge players. I've only seen one player in the last 4 seasons with a 3.5 potential.

When I get to that point, first I only take "leading premiership player" reports on. Pretty soon even some of those are 2.5 star potential. At that point 3 star tends to mean "this guy will rock your world!"

When I get to that point, first I only take "leading premiership player" reports on. Pretty soon even some of those are 2.5 star potential. At that point 3 star tends to mean "this guy will rock your world!"

I've only been taking leading prem players for the last 10 seasons

I've only been taking leading prem players for the last 10 seasons

IF a player is from an obscure place / has a VERY low rep, sometimes decent/good premiership is worth taking a risk on. You know, the £20k transfer fee, £300 a week while playing for a treble winning side type low rep. I've had two. One turned into an £8 mil sale in a couple of years, the other actually sits on my bench and might end up breaking into the team. He's still improving every year, so might well turn into a real hidden gem.

I'm pretty convinced the scouts do use reputation as part of their stars, as well as PA.

I see no need to take the risk simply due to the huge number of leading Prem players my scouts find.

Hope they change how the AI judges players for FM12.

I've got to the point in my game where no player is given 4 star potential.

Pretty much everyone is 3 stars or less. Makes it very difficult to judge players. I've only seen one player in the last 4 seasons with a 3.5 potential.

Pretty much though, any newgen in the game with a PA of 180+ should have 4 stars after 1 of your coaches files a report on them.

3 stars = about the same as your current squad average.

I'm guessing the majority of my team is around the 180-190 mark judging by the reports Im getting.

Noone can have an impact on how good someone can be at anything in real life.

Sorry to be blunt but that is the toshest pile of codswollop I have ever did. As an example: I do not understand differentiation; my teacher sits down with me and now i do. Did i have innanate potential before my teacher sat down with me? no (in that it's not possible to really understand that abstract nonsense anyway). Is it because of my teacher that I am able to work with an idea that meant nothing to me yesterday? absolutely. did my teacher have an impact on my CA (at maths) yes.

You are right that it is both IRL but atm in FM all there is is an eventual upper limit, which is ridiculous

I doubt my regen can reach even 3.5* ratings if there's only 4 points of PA left for him to use.

Let's see what happens

Yes you do have innate potential in maths. If you didn't you wouldn't have understood even though the teacher sat down with you. I believe the human brain has so huge potential for learning that it is much up to circumstances if that potential is reached - but the potential isn't endless. Most of us can learn what we need to in order to survive, but a special talent is needed to excel. When it comes to football, everyone can learn how to be decent players at our current physical level - but once someone competes with others who have the same level of fitness the difference between those who manage fine and those who dominate is the exact RL equivalent of FM's Potential Ability.

Not only do an exceptional talent in football need to have a rather rare combination of "quick" and "long-lasting" muscle fibers, the ability to tolerate extreme amounts of repetitive training without becoming injured and no physical or mental deficiencies - he also need to have an ambitious, diligent and extremely competitive mind-set and on top of this grow up a place where personality traits connected to these abilities are providing a high social status, winner instinct is nurtured and there is a culture for breeding footballers. Then, as he grows up he needs to be lucky to get the chance to play football with better players, but not so much better that he falls through (then the mental traits would have to be even more exceptional). And yet I haven't mentioned the ability to keep focused, the ability to read the flow of the game, to understand what your teammates want you to do, to give everything for other persons (the team, fans, the manager) through a pain barrier that would have made us couch potatoes cry.

This is why there is only one Messi, but there are many videos of South Americans who do stuff quite like what he did with a ball at a young age - but where are they now?

I've played FM since 06 and have alway's gone with a lower league club (apart from once winning everything with Juve) in the hopes of pulling them up into the top division (I nearly did it with Grimsby once but after three seasons in the championship and a stadium <10000 money was a problem and I just took the place Everton offered).

I've always played with a carefully managed coaching staff (4+ stars whatever the division) and have always gone for youth over experience.

I always assumed that promising youngsters hardly developed because my training facilities weren't up to scratch but...

Having skipped 09/10 I started with Southampton (myhome town) on 11.0 and worked my way into the Prem where, with an average age of 22, we have managed top half finishes for the first two seasons (mainly because most of the teams here are championship standard, which was dissappointing), a league cup win (thanks to Chelsea playing a B team in the semi and Liverpool going a man down after 15' in the final) and are currentlyin the 1st knockout round of the EC.

So, for the first time, I thought I'd check out the community and see what other people's tactics and training was like, see if there was anything I'd miissed over the years.

And then I come across Potential Ability.

This cheapskate idea for managing numbers of quality players has ruined my game and i will not be buying another FM until it's fixed.

Case in point:

Mamdou M'Baye

At 17 this regen was southampton's first choice playmaker with passing+creativity 17, plus good tackling plus good technique plus good finishing, plus being a 6'7" French-Senegalese with physical oomph I thought he would be the next Xabi Alonso.

Heck Man U were interested in making him the next Carrick. Oh yeah and I paid aging Lampard >£1.5M just to tutor him

Mamadou is now nearly 19 and has put in 7.07 this last half season, but he's also stopped growing. So, having just come acroos this PA idea I decided to check his out and find out why.

CA 146 PA 150 (the lowest of all my young signings - ridiculous as he's the only one to break into the squad).

I can only think of one youngster to have been a Premiership playmaker before he was 20 and now we call him Cesc

So, WTF? some ridiculous pre-determined value means that he can never be great? he (and my young CB) will never have any real footballing intelligence no matter how well/often they play nor the quality of their training? Despite having solid stats for determination, work rate and (as i'm now aware) ambition and professionalism.

The last 2.5 seasons in the Premiership have seens his AR's gor from 6.76 to 6.91 to 7.07 and he will never get any better.

Now I could understand if there were some interesting mechanics behind this like his being too much of a turd to his teammates (which he is) or his being over-hyped or over-pressured or over-injured or whatever, but instead he's just hit his level cap. Bull Shirt.

I've spent thousands of hours trying to grown hundreds of young players and it's always just been a hidden Random Number barring their way.

Shame on you Sports Aren't Interactive

Shame on your lack of imagination, shame on your quick fix cheap and nasty player growth:

THE MOST REWARDING PART OF THE GAME IS A SHAM

I will not be buying another SI FM game till this is changed.

If anyone has knows of a dynamic PA add-on please let me know.

Thanks for your time

Yawn. There are plenty of examples of Premiership players who looked good for a while then burnt out. Francis Jeffers, Reyes, David Nugent, Micheal Bridges, Chris Sutton, Michael Ricketts.

Do you want all your young players who have average seasons at a young age to be 200 PA or something?

Potential ability works, if you don't feel the need to look at them using an outside source..

frith mate all your examples are forwards, how many young midfielders are there who failed to improve their game?

how many 18 year old young CMs will fail to grow their understanding of Premier league football?

What is premier league experience about if not the development of decision making and composure at the highest level of competetive play? his PA means these attributes cannot grow, despite their being about experience, and nothing to do with talent. He isn't a physical fighter with a killer instict (like ^^ examples) he's just a kid who needs confidence (ie composure, currently not something his manager can help him with, whcih is a fail; do you think Josep and arsene just let young cesc stay cool all on his lonesome) and tactical understanding (which is something completely remeoved from talentand therefore PA in the first place, yet which is currently constrained by his birth? ridiculous)

150 CA/PA is more than good enough imvho. I've won a shedload of titles with players equal or less to that.

Maybe only 2 players in the whole world are worthy of 190+ today; Messi and that diving, squealing portugese guy.

frith mate all your examples are forwards, how many young midfielders are there who failed to improve their game?

how many 18 year old young CMs will fail to grow their understanding of Premier league football?

Plenty of them... Actually it's much easier being impressive as teenager backups/rotation players with almost no pressure and a "que sera sera" sort of expectation than actually stepping up as Top Players.

As long as all they expect is solid and safe play, it's not that hard for relatively talented youngsters. It's when they expect a change of pace and a transition from "promising" to "leading" that things can go horribly wrong, really quick.

Some names?

Dalla Bona had his best seasons at Chelsea from age 19-20, then he went from one failure to the next one.

Ivan de la Peña went from hero to zero as soon as he left Barça at 21.

Montolivo was as good as 20 as he is now. ZERO growth...

Aquilani was a first team regular at 20 for Roma, and that was, until the current season, the year he had more appearences.

Wanna talk about Generic Brazilian/Argentinian star?

On a more obscure note, Per Ciljan Skjelbred is only 24 but has been around like forever, yet he's still stuck in the "promising youngster" limbo as if he still was 17. Flatlined much?

What is premier league experience about if not the development of decision making and composure at the highest level of competetive play? his PA means these attributes cannot grow, despite their being about experience, and nothing to do with talent. He isn't a physical fighter with a killer instict (like ^^ examples) he's just a kid who needs confidence (ie composure, currently not something his manager can help him with, whcih is a fail; do you think Josep and arsene just let young cesc stay cool all on his lonesome) and tactical understanding (which is something completely remeoved from talentand therefore PA in the first place, yet which is currently constrained by his birth? ridiculous)

If there are some PA points left, he'll still improve in mental skills as he gets older and more mature.

And anyway if he's still performing well, above 7.00 AvR why being so anal about 5 more PA points?

Above 7 average is fine for a midfielder.

Seriously, if Messi is 190+ CA/PA then 150 is only ~20% less a player than Messi. Most teams at the top would take that happily.

People rely on stats too much imho. I play with a skin that hides all attributes. I have no idea how good or bad a player is unless I watch him play in 3D. I could care less about PA/CA. All that matters to me is he good enough in 3D on the pitch and consistant enough to warrant a place in my first 11. I don't even take any notice of computer generated match ratings. I've seen players with my own eyes play exceptionally well in a game and get a low rating, and seen players be hopeless all game, score a late tap in and get MoM. Bollox. Use your own intuition, your own eyes and your own assesment instead of heavy reliance on stats. I know everyone plays the game in their own way and some can't stand 3D or the self-induced handicaps some of us use (like Lower League manager rules and skins that hide stats), but give it a try. Your frustrations about stats, attributes, and capped PA's etc don't mean a thing when you rely soley on your own abillity to judge how good or bad a player is with your own eyes. Yes I've bought my fair share of donkeys, but there is no greater feeling of unearthing a gem based soley on your own judgement of how well someone played for you whilst on trial with your club, or from that scouting mission you took yourself to watch him play in 3D wherever he may be.

That's a fair point Erimus on rating not matching contribution. I find this especially with DM's who do diamond work, but without a goal or even an assist will struggle to push past a 7. If you watch your team, you will see who is doing it and who is not week in week out.

You can have a CB who has a stormer, team winning 3-0, yet misses a header in the 93rd min to concede a goal and he's given an instant 6.1 match rating or something like.

You say you can't affect players' development - but you already have, almost as much as you can - so well done.

Think of Freddy Adu.

A very talented youngster (Say his CA was 110 at 15) unfortunately, he didn't get any better, so his PA now is still at that level.

Thats the problem i have with the whole sysitem too, Adu would have been judged by my scouts as good but not top player then, while IRL he was judged as top talent that didnt pan out, so the current system doesnt reflect real life development enough for me. I agree its just no fun knowing how a player will pan out when you have half decent scouts. I am not against the concept of PA totally but it shouldnt be scoutable so easily, scout reports should be based on performance, because no one can see some hidden thing in a player IRl, you can only say he is technically gifted etc..which represent only his CA. So PA should be totally not used ingame and be able to be seen by scouts. A scout would never say: "Well this guy plays awesome games, has great technical abilities for hsi age etc. but he will never be able to be a top player because he doesnt have "it". " Or even worse: "Well this guy sucks, he can stop a ball and is totally useless never played a good game, but i think he has the potential to be Prem. player because of my gut feeling." Totally unrealistic. I think making PA a thing totally not being a factor in game would make the game a lot more fun , you d have to judge young guys in by their current performance and skill setup and it would be a lot more fun finf the diamond in the rough.

To make it short: IRL a player is talented when he shows something good for his age, in FM a player is judged by your scout as talented because he has high PA. Just let the guys scout for the best players current and not let them view PA and the game gets a huge boost in realism, challenge and fun, i havent bought the game for 2 years now because of that lame viewable fixed potential concept.

Also what is totally missing is the decline of players based on poor performance.

frith mate all your examples are forwards, how many young midfielders are there who failed to improve their game?

how many 18 year old young CMs will fail to grow their understanding of Premier league football?

What is premier league experience about if not the development of decision making and composure at the highest level of competetive play? his PA means these attributes cannot grow, despite their being about experience, and nothing to do with talent. He isn't a physical fighter with a killer instict (like ^^ examples) he's just a kid who needs confidence (ie composure, currently not something his manager can help him with, whcih is a fail; do you think Josep and arsene just let young cesc stay cool all on his lonesome) and tactical understanding (which is something completely remeoved from talentand therefore PA in the first place, yet which is currently constrained by his birth? ridiculous)

Okay then. Scott Parker.

Excellent attacking player at Charlton, earnt a move to Chelsea where he was overshadowed by foreign players with more flair.

Now in a purple patch, despite being in a very poor West Ham side. If you were signing Scott Parker (i.e when he moved to Chelsea) he would have had great attributes, but never cut it at the highest level.

My point is that Scott Parker is in no way technically better than he was at Charlton, his PA was probably very good then, but his CA will have been consistent since he established himself in the Premiership.

It's not all about CA/PA and average ratings. Player's mental attributes grow with age, intelligence and awareness are just as important as raw natural talent.

Another example, Giles Barnes perhaps, he would fit in with the description of your player, he looked like he has talent, but probably not the mentality to cut it at the highest level.

Jermain Pennant ? Do you remember Cadamarteri, was a Everton first team player, and what about Karlon? and Freddy Adu? there is so many football flops, players that reach their maximum very earlyer and stop development.

The issue is that the players' development nor current performances are not factored into development.

Someone mentioned Jeffers. Teenage wonderkid who flopped. But there is a reason why he flopped - his performances were not sustained and quite frankly stank, meaning his development curve slumped. This is not the case in the OP - the player is a teenage wonderkid whose performances are sustained - shouldn't he continue developing? If he is young and continuing to play well, he is going to continue to learn and therefore continue to develop.

Some suggest he shouldn't develop because his potential won't let him develop further. This begs the question - he won't develop because he's reached his limit; he's reached his limit because he's developed well.

If a team had a player who was 17 and was averaging 7.50 consistently in the first-team of the Premier League, in reality he would develop quickly and drastically; in the game he won't if his PA is low.

If you like, I believe there is a reason why so many hero-to-zero players stopped developing, and that is why they flopped - not that they hit their "potential", which is only available in hindsight (and in fact could still be wrong - Giovani dos Santos might, for example, do a "Luca Toni" later-on in life and skyrocket to greater heights).