Does "judging potential ability" make sense?

When you ask your scout for a report on player X, you will get a resport with current ability and potential ability. How does can a scout know the potential ability of a player? I would guess that scouts would compare players to other players of the same age. I don't know how scouts work in real life, but if a scout sees two 16 year olds, X has a current ability of 20 and a potential ability of 140, whereas player Y is 50/100, wouldn't a scout always reccomend Y, since a judgement is always based on what he sees now? Only after watching for weeks one can say that player X seems to develop quicker. Or it might be possible to say that player Y is better at this moment, because he is ahead in his physical development. But how would a scout know or guess the potential of a player?

I believe experience is a important factor.

And experient scout, can tell if a 16 yo player will developed into a good player. Of course the margin of error is big, with many factors that can influence the final outcome.

And i think you are a bit wrong. When a scout watchs a players with 16 yo, his main concern is the player potential ability, not his current hability. With 16 yo, the player still have a lot the grow, as a player, and as a man (in terms of his personality).

http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/2359201

ask Craig Brown, he seems to be able to judge potential.

There are some things you can teach and other things you can't (or that are very difficult to) and a good scout would know what those things are and be able to judge a player based on that. If a player isn't that great but has those difficult-to-teach skills, he would have better potential than someone who has just been taught well. I don't know what those things are though.

But then if they got rid of judging potential tomorrow, I wouldn't complain either. It's strange to see such an abstract idea laid out in black and white on the screen and the game would be fine without us knowing who is going to progress and who isn't.

Experience. The scout has seen dozens of youngsters make the grade and thousands fail and knows what to look for.

In the game, the scouts probably are too psychic but who wants to sift through a hundred regens to find one good one?

There are some things you can teach and other things you can't (or that are very difficult to)

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that there are some things that can't be taught.

I think you should read this: http://au.fourfourtwo.com/Features/6785,the-talent-myth.aspx

When you ask your scout for a report on player X, you will get a resport with current ability and potential ability. How does can a scout know the potential ability of a player? I would guess that scouts would compare players to other players of the same age. I don't know how scouts work in real life, but if a scout sees two 16 year olds, X has a current ability of 20 and a potential ability of 140, whereas player Y is 50/100, wouldn't a scout always reccomend Y, since a judgement is always based on what he sees now? Only after watching for weeks one can say that player X seems to develop quicker. Or it might be possible to say that player Y is better at this moment, because he is ahead in his physical development. But how would a scout know or guess the potential of a player?

Obviously the game (FM) must somehow simulate the long process of scouting a youngster and of "guessing" how good he can get under the right circumstances, so we have Potential Ability and Judging Potential Ability.

Long story short: the higher the JPA rating is, the closer to the player's actual PA the scout will be in his guess.

So if you have a 16yo striker with 175PA, a scout with high JPA will tell you the kid has the potential to become a top-notch striker in the future.

About your comparison between players, the scout should recommendo both with the same star rating, but their current ability and their attributes (hence their CA rating) will clearly show the 20/140 kid is a looooong shot (and basically not worth your money/time) while the 100/140 kid is worth a try.

In real life the 20/140 kid would probably never be given a second look, because his current ability would definitely overshadow whatever hidden talent he might have.

Actually it'd be more interesting comparing players with 70/160 and 110/130...

Basically Player A is potentially great but it'd almost take a miracle to turn him into a great player, while Player B is more or less ready to go, but he'll never become much better.

Still, in FM, most scouts would still recommend you Player A, because the high PA seem to count more than anything else in the scouting section, even when the low Current Ability would discuorage most clubs from signing him.

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that there are some things that can't be taught.

I think you should read this: http://au.fourfourtwo.com/Features/6785,the-talent-myth.aspx

Well, there is a saying in basketball, "you can't teach height".

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that there are some things that can't be taught.

I think you should read this: http://au.fourfourtwo.com/Features/6785,the-talent-myth.aspx

But that's no scientific evidence that they can.

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that there are some things that can't be taught.

Nobody said you CAN'T be taught things, or that you won't learn them...

The actual question is: HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE? Is it worth it? And considering we're talking professional sports (real sports or simulations of real sports) you know time is a huge factor.

In high-school I didn't open a grammar of Latin or of Ancient Greek past freshman year, yet I got As in translation tests/exams the whole time, while many of my more book-dedicated pals had to study their ass off just to land an odd B- (and believe me, they KNEW all the rules by heart, while I was going on instinct)

Or... I'm regularly getting my ass kicked at F1200x and rFactor by friends who have just installed the game, while I've been playing said games (and pretty much EVERY racing sim since GP2) for months before them...

Or... I've been playing beach volleyball every day of every summer in the last decade, and still my bump skills are awful... and the rest isn't much better.

Could my schoolmates get better at translating? Could I lap at Albert Park under 1'30? Could I ever become good enough for amateur beach-volleyball local tournaments?

Maybe so, but how much practice would those tasks require?

Talent exists, and it indicates how fast/well we can learn to do things, and how difficult said things can become before we start to struggle and to fall behind

"Potential" as an innate absolute doesn't make sense in the first place, so as long as we accept that everyone's born with some magical ability roof that they cannot surpass no matter what they do, I'm not too fussed about it being scoutable ingame.

Well, there is a saying in basketball, "you can't teach height".

No, but how good a basketball player is is not determined purely by height. Certainly, it helps, but NBA players have fantastic awareness and technique.

But that's no scientific evidence that they can.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the more you practice, the better you get...

Nobody said you CAN'T be taught things, or that you won't learn them...

The actual question is: HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE? Is it worth it? And considering we're talking professional sports (real sports or simulations of real sports) you know time is a huge factor.

In high-school I didn't open a grammar of Latin or of Ancient Greek past freshman year, yet I got As in translation tests/exams the whole time, while many of my more book-dedicated pals had to study their ass off just to land an odd B-

Or... I'm regularly getting my ass kicked at F1200x and rFactor by friends who have just installed the game, while I've been playing said games (and pretty much EVERY racing sim since GP2) for months before them...

Could my schoolmates get better at translating? Could I lap at Albert Park under 1'30?

Maybe so, but how much practice would those tasks require?

That's what research is for!

What matters is that it is possible, and it requires (unknown) X amount of time to do so.

Take the language bit - I suspect, as an anecdote, that someone who has mastery of words and sentences in their mother tongue from young will be able to recognise and learn foreign languages better. Being able to understand sentence constructs as a youngster means that you can pick up things like memorisation skills better, too. I think this is what happened to me - my mother always read to me as a baby (even when I clearly didn't understand), and I took up reading like a duck to water. I picked up French easily (although I didn't enjoy it, so my GCSEs didn't go great), and I picked up Malay really easily despite not taking any lessons. I can sort of recognise languages' quirks and grammatical structures and learn from there. I learnt most of my Malay watching Chinese and Korean dramas, actually - and I don't understand any dialect of Chinese nor Korean to any great detail - they just had Malay subtitles!

Talent exists, and it indicates how fast/well we can learn to do things, and how difficult said things can become before we start to struggle and to fall behind

The thing is, this isn't supported by the science. The notion X, Y and Z we are winners of a genetic lottery has no evidence. In addition, it is impossible to gauge and is arguably unfalsifiable, since you can always argue that this person never fulfilled their talent - it is impossible to be wrong.

Now, of course, some birth circumstances will always help. For example, if you were born in Africa, you would likely become a good sprinter should you move into sport, due to the harsh climate and genetics. However, there is no evidence to suggest it limits development.

PV is Peter Vint, High Performance Director for the United States Olympic Committee

DP: So, do genetics play any role in sports success?

PV: My short answer is yes, to varying extents, they do. But, as before, I do not believe that genetics are necessarily an absolute limiter of exceptional performances. "Skill" is developed, not from basic physical or cognitive attributes or from some magical quality ("a gift"), but from sustained, effortful, and effective practice complemented with meaningful, well-timed, and actionable feedback.

Skill itself is a complex process and almost always involves many different types or classes of skill: motor skill (the physical actions involved with "doing something"), mental skills, and perceptual skills. The extent to which these various types of skills are called into play will depend on the overall task being executed.

For example, a pilot controlling an automated aircraft may need only nominal motor skill to press a button, but will require substantial mental and perceptual skill to understand what happens when the automation switches from one mode to another. On the other hand, a basketball player will require extensive motor skill in executing a drive to the basket but will, though to a lesser extent, also involve perceptual and mental skills. Good examples of the world's best players in sport (especially team sports) seem to have exceptionally well developed perceptual skills which allow them to "see the field" better than others and "know where players will be before they even arrive".

So, physical ability (height, strength, speed, coordination) and the specific genetic code which tends to manifest it, may or may not play a significant role in the execution of the skill, depending on what the skill actually requires. The same is true of genetic predisposition, which may either enhance or impair the development of mental and perceptual skill.

In the context of sport, well-matched physical abilities are often very advantageous. That said, those same physical attributes, without an ability to properly coordinate body actions or to properly execute the action at the appropriate time or to adequately control them under pressure or in unusual circumstances, more often than not, will lead to poorer performances. Pointing again to examples like Wayne Gretzky or Magic Johnson, these were not the biggest, fastest, or strongest athletes in their sport. Their exceptional performances came from exceptional development of all facets of the skills they were required to execute in the environments they worked in. This did not happen magically but through hard work, vast and varied experiences, and a level of physical ability that allowed them to execute. To quote Wayne Gretzky, “I wasn't naturally gifted in terms of size and speed; everything I did in hockey I worked for. ..The highest compliment that you can pay me is to say that I work hard every day…”

http://www.science20.com/sports_are_80_percent_mental/practice_or_genetics_peter_vint_youth_sports_development-78997

This also mentions a book: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article4969415.ece

I'm planning on buying this book (Outliers) as it will doubtless contain other references.

In American sports, scouts use a statistical method called regression analysis to come up with a quantified measure of a player's potential. Baseball scouts, in particular, are now able to predict the general course of a young player's career with an incredible level of accuracy (assuming the player doesn't develop a serious injury, of course). I don't know how prevalent football scouts use regression analysis right now, but I do recall reading that FSG's statisticians played a big role in convincing Liverpool to shell out big fees for Carroll, Downing and Henderson.

Basically, this is how it works: instead of comparing current young player A to current young player B, the scout looks at the statistics and physical characteristics of current young player A and finds older and retired players who had similar statistics and physical characteristics at that same point in their career. The scout then looks at how the careers of those older players progressed, uses that to determine the probability that young player A will develop in similar ways to older players X, Y & Z and then comes up with the odds that he'll turn out to be a great player, a decent player or a total flop.

What matters is that it is possible, and it requires (unknown) X amount of time to do so.

But since in our life we just have a certain amount of time to learn how to do something, or, if you will, to develop our talent, that "X" becomes a vital variable...

Take the language bit...

Fair enough, language learning might have a lot to do with "exposure" so I can concede it's not the best example here... still I'm not entirely convinced it's just about how much you talk/read to your infant..

I mean, when you hear people who have lived in a country/area since forever and they STILL have a thick foreign/regional accent, or when you see A-grade students who need to take the PET thrice to get a passing grade (despite having attended every class, every time) you just can't possibly chalk it up to "parents who didn't read to him when he was in the cradle"

Sports might partly depend on physical traits (a 5"4 guy is unlikely to be a great volley/basket player, or a quite near-sighted guy won't probalby pick archery or shooting, or a stocky girl will not get past the amateur stage of ballet), still do you think Roy Keane's touch could have eventually "educated" enough to reach the level of Beckham's?

If it was just a matter of "learning", given that ANYBODY can become equally good, what's the point in spending millions in youth academies?

Hell, if it was just about "we need X time to turn Billy and Timmy into the next Xavi and Messi", China would have won a World Cup already, considering the "Assembly line" style of development in sports is their forte.

The point is: by practicing guitar 10 hours a day from age 6 you can eventually become as good as Malmsteen. But that can happen at age 15 for some, at age 10 for others or at age 60, or NEVER for some others.

IIRC you're good with numbers and formulas, so you can figure out how Talent (T) is related to Time (t), Effort (E) and Complexity of the taks ©

I'd give it a shot, but maths is definitely something I've lost my talent for a long time ago...

Personally I believe judging potential should be based on age, performances in matches and stand-out attributes for the position they play.

So a 16 year old striker (150PA) with a 7.0 average and high finishing would be rated higher than an 18 year old striker (170PA) with a 6.5 average and low finishing.

Oh, and don't turn this thread into yet another pointless argument about how realistic the potential system in FM may or may not be. It is at it is. It will be improved, it will not be completely rewritten any time soon. Don't make me close the thread please.

In my opinion, the biggest issue is how difficult it is for a player to continue progressing past the age of 24 or so. An example: Mario Balotelli in my save game is now 26, with a PA/CA of 107 and 178. He's now playing in Serie B and my MLS scout rated him at 3 stars, with the belief being that he'll never perform up to his potential. In-game, Balotelli could light up the league and score 50 goals in 30 games or something and see very little change to his CA. But in real life? A season like that would likely result in a re-evaluation of his ratings with the likely result being a hefty bump to his CA.

Take two players with identical 100/180 ratings at the age of 18 or so. Both perform well and find themselves at the age of 24 with ratings of 150/180. However, at this point their careers diverge and three years later, one player finds himself at 125CA while the other is at 170. At this point, it doesn't matter how the player's perform from here on out- a few bad seasons out of the 170 guy likely won't hurt his ratings too bad, whereas even a couple of great ones likely wouldn't raise the 125 one by a significant amount.

I agree with the OP. Scouts are looking at a player's ability now and comparing it against their contemporaries and the level of established players when they were the same age.

If two players have roughly the same level of ability the only way they can predict that one will outstrip the other is by looking at the skill sets and histories of the players for indications that one has more room for improvement. E.G a scout looks at the two best young players at a club. One is a six foot two fifteen year old who muscles the other kids out of the way but is average technically the other is small and slow but head and shoulders better then his team-mates on the ball. It makes sense that the scout would recommend the second kid because the first would have to grow up to be seven foot tall to enjoy the same advantages over adult players, while there is a higher chance that the second player has a late growth spurt and bridges the physical gap.

Another example would be two very similar players. The first has been part of the youth team for five years getting formal coaching the second played only in the park with his mates until a few weeks ago. Obviously its resnoble to think there is more room for improvement in the second kids game.

do not confuse form with talent, people look too much into PA as a number, what counts are performances, regardless of what their stats tell you. In your example one player has gone on to be a top player, the other a lower table prem player or championship player, one player playing poorly and another playing well doesnt have to mean they have changed technically, more that the players are either playing within them selves, or above them selves. Like i say tho, judge a player by his performances, not just their stats, your only ever getting half the story so to speak.

But since in our life we just have a certain amount of time to learn how to do something, or, if you will, to develop our talent, that "X" becomes a vital variable...

Do we ever stop learning?

There is simply diminishing returns as we get older and older. We absorb information quicker as youngsters, but we never stop absorbing information until we become senile.

Sports might partly depend on physical traits (a 5"4 guy is unlikely to be a great volley/basket player, or a quite near-sighted guy won't probalby pick archery or shooting, or a stocky girl will not get past the amateur stage of ballet), still do you think Roy Keane's touch could have eventually "educated" enough to reach the level of Beckham's?

Why not? If Keano had done a Beckham and practiced dead-ball situations hundreds of times a day, why might he not turn out that way?

If it was just a matter of "learning", given that ANYBODY can become equally good, what's the point in spending millions in youth academies?

Hell, if it was just about "we need X time to turn Billy and Timmy into the next Xavi and Messi", China would have won a World Cup already, considering the "Assembly line" style of development in sports is their forte.

Because some academies still do it better than others. La Masia's training involves trying to maximise the number of touches as possible. Ajax's De Toekomst emphases technique and intelligence. Stoke's academy involves players standing on the halfway line and kicking the ball as hard as possible. And so on.

It all comes down to things like attitude and motivation. Someone who doesn't want to become a doctor will likely never become a good doctor even if forced through medical school. A child who doesn't enjoy football isn't going to reach the mythical 10,000 hour mark for training.

Think about it - you were in classrooms once, no? Everyone in your class got the same level of teaching by your teachers. Some of your peers clearly didn't enjoy, say, maths - they are probably not going to turn out as mathematicians. Some of your peers put hours into studying it - they are more likely to be mathematicians. In other words, despite all of you being in the same class, not all of you turned out the same.

What cannot be denied is that some teachers - or trainers in the case of football - are better than others. What cannot be denied is that some schools - or academies in the case of football - are better than others. They are more capable of maximising players' development and motivation. This is what the likes of La Masia are good at.

The point is: by practicing guitar 10 hours a day from age 6 you can eventually become as good as Malmsteen. But that can happen at age 15 for some, at age 10 for others or at age 60, or NEVER for some others.

Development as a youngster makes no guarantees but it is backed up by science that you are more likely to succeed if you practice heavily as a youngster. It is not the case that two people who practice something equally will be exactly the same. Genetically and in terms of personality, this is overwhelmingly unlikely.

IIRC you're good with numbers and formulas, so you can figure out how Talent (T) is related to Time (t), Effort (E) and Complexity of the taks ©

I'd give it a shot, but maths is definitely something I've lost my talent for a long time ago...

Not sure what you are trying to get at here. There is no formulae for talent - no magical formula how to develop a Lionel Messi.

What the links I've posted above suggest there is no such thing as "talent". A "talent" is not the result of winning a genetic lottery - a "talent" is someone who has been studiously practicing something for many, many hours, starting from young, and has had the motivation, attitude and desire throughout.

You aren't "born" a talent. Certainly, some circumstances are more favourable, but that is just one of the many factors leading up to your development.

Oh, and don't turn this thread into yet another pointless argument about how realistic the potential system in FM may or may not be. It is at it is. It will be improved, it will not be completely rewritten any time soon. Don't make me close the thread please.

What makes you think it's pointless? The whole point of a forum is to debate.

What is the point of a forum for Football Manager if we cannot discuss the merits and flaws of Football Manager?

Because you've started the same argument dozens of times and it never gets anywhere. If you kept it to one thread it wouldn't matter, but you bring it up in every single thread that even marginally relates to potential.

Because you've started the same argument dozens of times and it never gets anywhere. If you kept it to one thread it wouldn't matter, but you bring it up in every single thread that even marginally relates to potential.

Does it matter if the argument goes nowhere?

As long as it doesn't descend into insults or childishness, is it really a problem if a thread has a long debate in it?

People are free to not argue if they don't want to.

This PA debate isn't pointless - I've had a debate with one member of SI and many other members, and I've ended up having to look at other sources that back up my position. I feel the debate is getting somewhere - just slowly. I don't think it's pointless at all.

My point is the number of threads you turn into this discussion - keep it to one thread that's actually about the potential system and that will be fine.

What if this thread dies out and someone else starts another thread on potential? I think that's unfair to keep me to one thread.

I don't believe I've ever started a PA debate in two threads at the same time before. I just jump from thread to thread as they pop up, but only one at a time...

@ x42bn6: Some highly interesting points you have raised.

It was not my goal to say, oh look fm is so unrealistic. I am just wondering how scouts in real life judge talent.

When talking about talent, it is tempting to think in terms of nature or nurture. But these aren't mutually exclusive dimensions, nature needs nurture to become great at something. Praticing enough changes your body, your brains.

In my view, motivation is the most important aspect. Why did the young Messi play with a football day after day? Probably because he liked it. Intrinsic motivation.

@ x42bn6: Some highly interesting points you have raised.

It was not my goal to say, oh look fm is so unrealistic. I am just wondering how scouts in real life judge talent.

When talking about talent, it is tempting to think in terms of nature or nurture. But these aren't mutually exclusive dimensions, nature needs nurture to become great at something. Praticing enough changes your body, your brains.

In my view, motivation is the most important aspect. Why did the young Messi play with a football day after day? Probably because he liked it. Intrinsic motivation.

Don't agree with this. Your body cells at birth can change wildly throughout your lifetime. Nature is, in fact, a lot less important than nurture. You can have amazing genes but that matters little - it will change dramatically over your lifetime.

It is not that nature needs nurture, or the other way round. The simple fact is that your development is tied to both, and more to nurture than nature, for the reason stated above.

You can have nurture without nature. Look at Collins John - he was born in war-torn Liberia and he suffered family casualties there. But he managed to have a respectable footballing career, although it looks to be heading to the dumps now.

Development as a youngster makes no guarantees but it is backed up by science that you are more likely to succeed if you practice heavily as a youngster. It is not the case that two people who practice something equally will be exactly the same. Genetically and in terms of personality, this is overwhelmingly unlikely.

Not sure what you are trying to get at here. There is no formulae for talent - no magical formula how to develop a Lionel Messi.

What the links I've posted above suggest there is no such thing as "talent". A "talent" is not the result of winning a genetic lottery - a "talent" is someone who has been studiously practicing something for many, many hours, starting from young, and has had the motivation, attitude and desire throughout.You aren't "born" a talent. Certainly, some circumstances are more favourable, but that is just one of the many factors leading up to your development.

:confused:<<<I agree with him.

Don't agree with this. Your body cells at birth can change wildly throughout your lifetime. Nature is, in fact, a lot less important than nurture. You can have amazing genes but that matters little - it will change dramatically over your lifetime.

It is not that nature needs nurture, or the other way round. The simple fact is that your development is tied to both, and more to nurture than nature, for the reason stated above.

You can have nurture without nature. Look at Collins John - he was born in war-torn Liberia and he suffered family casualties there. But he managed to have a respectable footballing career, although it looks to be heading to the dumps now.

Nurture without nature is literal nonsense. There would be no genes, so no human in that case. Everybody starts with nature, although this nature is influenced by all kinds of things during pregnancy already. But you can't say that nature or nurture is more important, that doesn't make sense at any level. It is only possible to estimate for the population how much variance on attribute X can be explained by genes or environment. Even if the variance in attibute X is explained more by environment than genes, it is still a product of both. Moreover, the amount of effort or training that you are willing to do is also influenced by nature. Some combination of genes could in some environments lead to certain behavior(practicing). It is a complex interaction between genes and environment.

Despite this, I think that football skills will develop massively under the right circumstances for most people.

Nurture without nature is literal nonsense. There would be no genes, so no human in that case. Everybody starts with nature, although this nature is influenced by all kinds of things during pregnancy already. But you can't say that nature or nurture is more important, that doesn't make sense at any level.

Everyone starts with nature, but research suggests it matters less and less as you grow up. Nurture without nature does not imply no genes - it implies that nurture can have a significant effect regardless (not without) of genes.

Why can we not say that nature or nurture is more important? For some sports, it clearly is - for example, sprinters are likely more "nature" than football, where the smallest and slowest can be incredibly successful.

Look at the players La Masia and Ajax churn out. Busquets is one of the few physical players produced - the rest are relatively small and not that quick (but nippy and agile). Genetically, this doesn't make sense - where's the big and strong? This is simple - football is not about pure strength, but requires a lot of thinking - and therefore, it is less of a "nature" thing and more of a "nurture" thing.

It is only possible to estimate for the population how much variance on attribute X can be explained by genes or environment. Even if the variance in attibute X is explained more by environment than genes, it is still a product of both. Moreover, the amount of effort or training that you are willing to do is also influenced by nature. Some combination of genes could in some environments lead to certain behavior(practicing). It is a complex interaction between genes and environment.

Certainly, it is difficult to judge the raw effects of nature against nature given there is so much cross-interactions, but it is possible through adequate blocking (i.e. trying to keep the distribution of "nature" equivalent between two groups where one gets a better "nurture" and one gets a worse one).

Everyone starts with nature, but research suggests it matters less and less as you grow up. Nurture without nature does not imply no genes - it implies that nurture can have a significant effect regardless (not without) of genes.

Why can we not say that nature or nurture is more important? For some sports, it clearly is - for example, sprinters are likely more "nature" than football, where the smallest and slowest can be incredibly successful.

Because both are necessary, one thing can't be more necessary than another necessary thing. It is like asking: what is more important to breathe, lungs or oxygen? But this is not the point, the point is that probably practice can make a lot of difference in football, but how much? We don't know yet.

The research you quote only says that all top-footballers have practiced a lot. But who knows how many people spend just as much practiced just as much?

Look at the players La Masia and Ajax churn out. Busquets is one of the few physical players produced - the rest are relatively small and not that quick (but nippy and agile). Genetically, this doesn't make sense - where's the big and strong? This is simple - football is not about pure strength, but requires a lot of thinking - and therefore, it is less of a "nature" thing and more of a "nurture" thing.

But those players profit a lot from that agility. For that technical kind of football it is beneficial to be small and agile, so genetically,it makes sense.

Certainly, it is difficult to judge the raw effects of nature against nature given there is so much cross-interactions, but it is possible through adequate blocking (i.e. trying to keep the distribution of "nature" equivalent between two groups where one gets a better "nurture" and one gets a worse one).

That's possible, I am no expert on genetic research though.

:thup:Brilliant, a psychology thread to go with the top trumps thread. Now that's a study.

And yet another thread completely derailed by something that had nothing to do with the original post.

The original post was a good discussion waiting to happen, instead we just get this same discussion again. Can you not just start a thread about this whole nature vs nurture thing and keep it in there please?

Everyone starts with nature, but research suggests it matters less and less as you grow up. Nurture without nature does not imply no genes - it implies that nurture can have a significant effect regardless (not without) of genes.

Why can we not say that nature or nurture is more important? For some sports, it clearly is - for example, sprinters are likely more "nature" than football, where the smallest and slowest can be incredibly successful.

Look at the players La Masia and Ajax churn out. Busquets is one of the few physical players produced - the rest are relatively small and not that quick (but nippy and agile). Genetically, this doesn't make sense - where's the big and strong? This is simple - football is not about pure strength, but requires a lot of thinking - and therefore, it is less of a "nature" thing and more of a "nurture" thing.

Certainly, it is difficult to judge the raw effects of nature against nature given there is so much cross-interactions, but it is possible through adequate blocking (i.e. trying to keep the distribution of "nature" equivalent between two groups where one gets a better "nurture" and one gets a worse one).

Do you not think though that some people are naturally born with more intelligence in football than others?

Football isn't about pure strength but that doesn't mean that other attributes aren't genetic ....look at videos of Messi when he was really young. The way he dribbles past players and has much quicker feet than any other player and close control. Is that really down to practise at aged 4/5? or is that not just down to the talent he was born with. Higher natural talent with a football than other but bigger players are born with.

Maybe I'm being stupid but I don't believe it's just nature = height/stength etc...but so much more than that.

I disagree football is nurture over nature. Nurture/nature is a fair debate if we are debating the best footballers but no one who is born without the ability to play football would ever reach the top. Just like someone born who is very slow would never magically somehow turn into 100m champ.

Messi:

“I have changed nothing, my style of play is still that of a child,”

Of course he's been nurtured and worked on things like any other player but there are plenty things he does that are natural, without thought, things only Messi can do because it's impossible to teach some of the things he has done.

A lot of Messi is natural ability IMO.

While Barcelona help develop great players with extremely good coaching in all areas of their game even lives, don't forget, these players are picked for Barcelona because of their natural gift in playing football. Barcelona don't pick average players and create them. They pick young player with extraordinary natural ability to play the game and nurture them to be the best they can be, better than any other academy.

Because both are necessary, one thing can't be more necessary than another necessary thing. It is like asking: what is more important to breathe, lungs or oxygen? But this is not the point, the point is that probably practice can make a lot of difference in football, but how much? We don't know yet.

The research you quote only says that all top-footballers have practiced a lot. But who knows how many people spend just as much practiced just as much?

The thing is, however, largely, this doesn't tally into PA calculations if "nurture" matters. What is clear is that it pays a significant part.

I do concede we don't know how much - but I am not sure we really need to know.

The current PA system implies a full "nature" methodology.

But those players profit a lot from that agility. For that technical kind of football it is beneficial to be small and agile, so genetically,it makes sense.

"For that technical kind of football."

But not in football in general. Look at Cristiano Ronaldo, for example.

There's more football outside of La Masia and De Toekomst.

That's possible, I am no expert on genetic research though.

"Blocking" is a statistical thing, not genetic research. In this case, it involves trying to measure the effect of "nurture" whilst trying to keep the effects of "nature" the same for everything.

Do you not think though that some people are naturally born with more intelligence in football than others?

No. Research suggests the genetic lottery is one big myth.

Football isn't about pure strength but that doesn't mean that other attributes aren't genetic ....look at videos of Messi when he was really young. The way he dribbles past players and has much quicker feet than any other player and close control. Is that really down to practise at aged 4/5? or is that not just down to the talent he was born with. Higher natural talent with a football than other but bigger players are born with.

I'm not convinced he was born with that ability. What is possible is that he took up football as a child in a football-mad nation, enjoyed it and his parents had to yank him out from the roads to get him to eat dinner, he took up football in school, and pursued it diligently throughout his teenage years, with a good attitude.

There are lots of kids who have skills like that as a child - but they lose interest in football, or the needs to become a professional footballer aren't something they enjoy.

A lot of us were very good at something as children, but never took it up through adulthood. For me, for example, I was a good writer as a child, but never brought it through to secondary school and beyond.

Maybe I'm being stupid but I don't believe it's just nature = height/stength etc...but so much more than that.

I disagree football is nurture over nature. Nurture/nature is a fair debate if we are debating the best footballers but no one who is born without the ability to play football would ever reach the top. Just like someone born who is very slow would never magically somehow turn into 100m champ.

We aren't "born" slow as such, however.

Genetically, it does suggest that Africans make the best sprinters, but there is an open question whether non-Africans can ever be as dominant. Either way, there are plenty of non-African sprinters who are now amongst the best in the world.

Look at Tiger Woods. Was he born to be a golfer, or was it the fact he began golf at 2 years old, shot a 48 on a 9-hole golf course at 3, and broke 80 at 8 years old? He arguably played more golf in these 6 years than most do until adulthood! Not only that, but Woods sustained his development throughout his teenage years, winning countless Junior titles, and throughout college, breaking countless records.

Research suggests that it is development like this that makes the biggest difference - the "10,000 hours" mantra. Players who trained just like Woods would turn out like Woods.

It is not just a case of "well, why don't we just train them 10,000 hours then?" Because some people aren't as motivated as Woods was as a child. Some don't enjoy golf as much as him.

I'd note that "enjoyment" too is not necessarily a "nature" too - what we "enjoy" depends on what experience we see and hear as a child.

Messi:

Of course he's been nurtured and worked on things like any other player but there are plenty things he does that are natural, without thought, things only Messi can do because it's impossible to teach some of the things he has done.

What, like dribbling, footwork, intelligence and shooting ability?

What is it about Messi that cannot be taught?

While Barcelona help develop great players with extremely good coaching in all areas of their game even lives, don't forget, these players are picked for Barcelona because of their natural gift in playing football. Barcelona don't pick average players and create them. They pick young player with extraordinary natural ability to play the game and nurture them to be the best they can be, better than any other academy.

They pick players who look very good at a young age, say 9-years-old or so. They pick a large number and only sign a small number to supplant them at higher age groups.

But how do they pick these 9-year-olds? They can only go by how good they are, since 9-year-olds essentially have no playing history.

So how do these 9-year-olds become so "good"? The same applies above - nurture. These 9-year-olds aren't born with a gift for football - as a baby, you could barely walk, let alone dribble like Messi. Maybe they were born with cognitive abilities useful for reading a football match, but research has shown that this can be taught - remember, babies minds are hardly well-developed compared with an adult, so there is a huge scope for learning and developing.

And how do they develop these 9-year-olds? Nurture. They "have a gift" because they look good for La Masia - and they "look good" because of nurturing before they turned 9-years-old.

There really is no such thing as a magical orb within us that determines that we are brilliant at football. A baby's brain is tiny compared with an adult's, and it is always developing. There is no way a child can have a brain tuned towards football because even if he did, he would be susceptible to brain development and would be "contaminated" with all the information the baby receives through childhood. The moment a child finds reading and writing more interesting than sport puts the "football brain" under threat.

The only way to create a child to become the next Lionel Messi is to force it through the same career path as Messi - make it watch football as a baby, develop his strength and agility as a child, make it go to football schools and training, and so on - no parent will ever be so cruel. They will only go through this if their child actually enjoys it. If the child doesn't enjoy football, the parents aren't going to force them down that path even more. Messi, I suspect, enjoyed that footballing route - you can tell by how he plays on the pitch.

This "natural gift" for football really is just "how good a player is relative to his age, combined with any past knowledge on attitude and training" - nothing to do with this mythical, hidden ability within us, where scouts try to desperately see what this hidden ability looks like. All scouts can see is how good a player is now - and it's the small things, like how a player runs, what he does without the ball, how hard he works, how he passes, and so on - that matter. A poor scout might see a 7-foot giant scoring 10 goals per match with his body, whilst a good scout will see the tiny winger who created 5 of those goals with Beckham-esque crossing, for example - this "natural gift" is really just "his technique is outstanding for his age, and he really knows when to cross."

They pick players who look very good at a young age, say 9-years-old or so. They pick a large number and only sign a small number to supplant them at higher age groups.

But how do they pick these 9-year-olds? They can only go by how good they are, since 9-year-olds essentially have no playing history.

So how do these 9-year-olds become so "good"? The same applies above - nurture. These 9-year-olds aren't born with a gift for football - as a baby, you could barely walk, let alone dribble like Messi. Maybe they were born with cognitive abilities useful for reading a football match, but research has shown that this can be taught - remember, babies minds are hardly well-developed compared with an adult, so there is a huge scope for learning and developing.

And how do they develop these 9-year-olds? Nurture. They "have a gift" because they look good for La Masia - and they "look good" because of nurturing before they turned 9-years-old.

First, may I point you in the direction of post #28 as you appear to be contradicting yourself.

Regarding your quote; Is it not possible that, a child that is maybe born with these abilities has a head start over one who maybe isn't, and as there is no way of knowing the limit to which these cognitive abilities can reach, and no way of knowing the rate at which any given individual grows towards this unknown limit, with teaching, the head start provided by these innate abilities could be maintained or even improved thus enabling a child to ultimately reach a point closer to this unknown limit, making them a better footballer?

First, may I point you in the direction of post #28 as you appear to be contradicting yourself.

Don't see how I'm contradicting myself. I said two players with exactly the same training may still not turn out to be exactly equal (noise, genetics, cross-factors, etc.).

Regarding your quote; Is it not possible that, a child that is maybe born with these abilities has a head start over one who maybe isn't, and as there is no way of knowing the limit to which these cognitive abilities can reach, and no way of knowing the rate at which any given individual grows towards this unknown limit, with teaching, the head start provided by these innate abilities could be maintained or even improved thus enabling a child to ultimately reach a point closer to this unknown limit, making them a better footballer?

Possibly, but there is absolutely no way to test this, making this unfalsifiable, meaning it is impossible to prove or disprove, meaning it is probably not worth considering. A player who peaks at, say, point A - did he fulfill his talent as determined by this innate abilities, or did he not achieve his potential as initially determined because his real innate abilities were actually higher?

The only way to prove that an innate ability of some sort exists is that we need to be able to give a set of people exactly the same circumstances throughout birth (same parenting, same schools, same teaching, same training, etc.) - and ensuring they remain independent (i.e. they do not compete with each other) - such a test is incredibly difficult and would arguably be unethical since they are babies and you will be affecting their future significantly.

Also, since we know little about the brain and human body, there is no way of knowing what the theoretical "maximum" human being is (for the limits).

Essentially, your argument is that "we don't know X ("limits"), and we don't know Y ("rate of development"), so Z ("final development improved as a result of innate ability") might be possible." There are an infinite number of explanations for not knowing something - why should we focus on this single one? Maybe Z is "innate ability hinders a person because expectations are higher"? Or "innate ability doesn't matter"?

To be, since innate ability is so mysterious, complex, unmeasurable and unknown, the burden of proof lies on those who want to say that innate ability exists. Which is why research has started to shift the mindset away from the genetic lottery myth - there was no credible reason to believe innate ability exists to begin with.

Which all goes to show that this type of debate can bring us no nearer to finding out how a scout decides what potential a young player might have, and even less chance of finding out how it all works within the confines of a computer game.

ps. however interesting it might be to discuss.

The thing is, however, largely, this doesn't tally into PA calculations if "nurture" matters. What is clear is that it pays a significant part.

I do concede we don't know how much - but I am not sure we really need to know.

The current PA system implies a full "nature" methodology.

Agree. In FM, the nurture side is partly ingrained as players develop faster when the play more and train with better coaches and facilities. But for the scouting part it seems that judging potential is just the accuracy of judging the "nature" side. Maybe it is a good idea to change it, it would make it more of challenge as well.

In tennis, it can take a professional tennis player about 500-750 repeats of a move to learn it to fluency. To an amateur tennis player it takes 3000 repeats to learn it to the same standard. How fast someone learns something is akin to their potential.

In tennis, it can take a professional tennis player about 500-750 repeats of a move to learn it to fluency. To an amateur tennis player it takes 3000 repeats to learn it to the same standard. How fast someone learns something is akin to their potential.

You don't become a professional without practice.

Probably because a professional player has already put in the thousands of hours beforehand to get the basics, making any subsequent learning quicker?

You don't become a professional without practice.

Unless it is an attribute that contributes to the personality of a player in FM.

Unless it is an attribute that contributes to the personality of a player in FM.

Certainly, those with better attitudes are likely to be better players, but it's not a key distinguishing feature for a professional (Mario Balotelli, I'm looking at you).

You can have amateurs with "professional" and "ambitious" personalities, if their real desires are not footballing ones.

Certainly, those with better attitudes are likely to be better players, but it's not a key distinguishing feature for a professional (Mario Balotelli, I'm looking at you).

I would suggest that in FM those desires are footballing ones.

I would suggest that in FM those desires are footballing ones.

You can have amateurs who are ambitious and have professional attitudes, but just don't have time to pursue other things. Some of us might take five-a-side football quite seriously, for example, or have a part-time job as an amateur or semi-professional in football, but whose ambitions are divided.

No. Research suggests the genetic lottery is one big myth.

I'm not convinced he was born with that ability. What is possible is that he took up football as a child in a football-mad nation, enjoyed it and his parents had to yank him out from the roads to get him to eat dinner, he took up football in school, and pursued it diligently throughout his teenage years, with a good attitude.

There are lots of kids who have skills like that as a child - but they lose interest in football, or the needs to become a professional footballer aren't something they enjoy.

but that has nothing to do with the natural talent he was given. Quite obviously to become the best there is, you have to love what you do, practice from a young age and keep with it, but that has nothing to do with natural talent.

A lot of us were very good at something as children, but never took it up through adulthood. For me, for example, I was a good writer as a child, but never brought it through to secondary school and beyond.

again, nothing to do with what we are talking about really? You had a natural talent for writing. You didn't take it up. You still had the natural talent to start with.

Look at Tiger Woods. Was he born to be a golfer, or was it the fact he began golf at 2 years old, shot a 48 on a 9-hole golf course at 3, and broke 80 at 8 years old? He arguably played more golf in these 6 years than most do until adulthood! Not only that, but Woods sustained his development throughout his teenage years, winning countless Junior titles, and throughout college, breaking countless records.

Well he has natural talent for golf but golf is definitely far more man made than football. If he didn't have natural talent towards golf, he obviously wouldn't be so good from an early age. I'm sure there are plenty people across the world who played just as much in the park as Messi did or played as much golf as Woods did, are they better? No. They had nowhere near the talent.

Research suggests that it is development like this that makes the biggest difference - the "10,000 hours" mantra. Players who trained just like Woods would turn out like Woods.

It is not just a case of "well, why don't we just train them 10,000 hours then?" Because some people aren't as motivated as Woods was as a child. Some don't enjoy golf as much as him.

I'd note that "enjoyment" too is not necessarily a "nature" too - what we "enjoy" depends on what experience we see and hear as a child.

In some ways yes, in others no. Me and my Dad are football mad. My Brother hates football and is into things such as cars.

What, like dribbling, footwork, intelligence and shooting ability?

What is it about Messi that cannot be taught?

well his dribbling, footwork, way he moves is worked on like anything as you'd expect but cannot be created. You can't coach someone to be as good a dribbler as Messi, someone who glides past players so easily or else we would see 1000x's of Messi's, simply not the case. If people were the same, Barcelona would produce the same players over and over again. I think you're really doing a dis-service to footballers to believe everything (or almost everything) is taught, not to go all 'I'm great' on you ..but when I first played football aged 5 in a game at my school, I was the best player by a mile, the only previous football I played was in my house in the living room and kicking a ball in a park with my Dad. I dribbled past players so easily, I weren't taught that. I didn't practise dribbling to become good, the only thing I did in my living room was shoot at an inflantible goal my Dad was in! Even now, I had coaching at a high level for a long time and when I play now. There are obvious certain things that I've learnt within the game, being able to find space, getting on the half turn, creating space for other players, slowing the game down when it's needed etc...but then I could get the ball, jink in between two, lift it over the keeper. Where have I learnt that!? I certainly didn't get taught to do that, it just happens by natural instinct. When I first recieve the ball - taught, identifying the space the most dangerous space to move into in order for our team to create best possible opportunity - taught. Dribbling the ball, making the quick adjusment to go past a 2nd defender who comes across to cover and then lift it over the goalkeeper who rushes out - natural instincts. Natural things, it's what happens in an instant, when the ball is played through to Messi vs Arsenal, Almunia rushes out. Has Messi had a 1 on 1 coaching lesson about how to flick the ball over a keeper and volley it in!? No. His goal against Getafe, was he told "Lionel, dribble past 1, then go past another, then another, then another and score..." no....it's natural thought to do what he believes best. I'm really not sure Barca coaches tell players to dribble past 4/5 defenders. If everything wasn't natural and everything wasn't instructed, you wouldn't see these moments, you wouldn't see it because the players would do EXACTLY what they have been taught to do. Yet that isn't the case.

They pick players who look very good at a young age, say 9-years-old or so. They pick a large number and only sign a small number to supplant them at higher age groups.

But how do they pick these 9-year-olds? They can only go by how good they are, since 9-year-olds essentially have no playing history.

So how do these 9-year-olds become so "good"? The same applies above - nurture. These 9-year-olds aren't born with a gift for football - as a baby, you could barely walk, let alone dribble like Messi. Maybe they were born with cognitive abilities useful for reading a football match, but research has shown that this can be taught - remember, babies minds are hardly well-developed compared with an adult, so there is a huge scope for learning and developing.

They pick the young players who show the most natural talent when it comes to controlling the football and using the football intelligently for their age. Then they develop those NATURAL skills to create a player. You cannot have one without the other. No player will ever be created, while no footballer while make the grade without being coached at some stage. Although natural can get you places, look at Ian Wright, barely any sort of coaching at a young age, yet 33 caps for England and an Arsenal legend. Is that down to being taught things or simply his own natural ability to score goals and play football.

And how do they develop these 9-year-olds? Nurture. They "have a gift" because they look good for La Masia - and they "look good" because of nurturing before they turned 9-years-old.

There really is no such thing as a magical orb within us that determines that we are brilliant at football. A baby's brain is tiny compared with an adult's, and it is always developing. There is no way a child can have a brain tuned towards football because even if he did, he would be susceptible to brain development and would be "contaminated" with all the information the baby receives through childhood. The moment a child finds reading and writing more interesting than sport puts the "football brain" under threat.

The only way to create a child to become the next Lionel Messi is to force it through the same career path as Messi - make it watch football as a baby, develop his strength and agility as a child, make it go to football schools and training, and so on - no parent will ever be so cruel. They will only go through this if their child actually enjoys it. If the child doesn't enjoy football, the parents aren't going to force them down that path even more. Messi, I suspect, enjoyed that footballing route - you can tell by how he plays on the pitch.

You can't create Messi, that's why in the past 50 years, only Messi and Maradonna who resemble a slight match have emerged. If it was as easy as developing a player from day one with a lot of practise, we'd see hundreds and even thousands of these players walking the pitches today. We don't. It's natural.

This "natural gift" for football really is just "how good a player is relative to his age, combined with any past knowledge on attitude and training" - nothing to do with this mythical, hidden ability within us, where scouts try to desperately see what this hidden ability looks like. All scouts can see is how good a player is now - and it's the small things, like how a player runs, what he does without the ball, how hard he works, how he passes, and so on - that matter. A poor scout might see a 7-foot giant scoring 10 goals per match with his body, whilst a good scout will see the tiny winger who created 5 of those goals with Beckham-esque crossing, for example - this "natural gift" is really just "his technique is outstanding for his age, and he really knows when to cross."

I am not sure about this point. It is a natural gift, if no one has taught him the right time to deliver a cross, the height, the weight of a cross and the pace it should be delivered at. How is he doing it? It's something that comes natural to him.

It's as simple as this for me.

If you have exposed, me, you, messi, and 47 other random people at a very young age without any previous experience of playing football, played for 5 hours. In those 5 hours, in Messi, you'd see someone quite clearly above the rest. That is natural talent and it would happen.

Natural talent is then developed. For example, Messi dribbling and footwork, he was born with this amazing ability but in order to improve it at a rate to stay well above anyone else, he'd still have to practice and keep playing.

No footballer is ever created though. It's impossible. Without being disrespectful, anyone who knew the game would know that. Natural talent is the first biggest thing. Once spotted, it's developed and conditioned so that player can be the best player he can possibly be. Obviously as well, his own attitude and work ethic and desire plays a big part also. To believe that almost everyone is born within the same ability is laughable.

Fantastic post AVFC10!

The last paragraph sums up exactly what most people have said on this topic for the past few years.

Actually, no, he's ignored everything I've said that points out that research has suggested that the concept of natural talent is close to a myth. The only feature that is important and natural are your genetics, which strongly point towards things like pace and strength - things not necessarily that important in football (although certainly, it helps, as is in all sports). If anything, a human brain is not born fine-tuned with a sport in mind - a baby absorbs so much information as he grows up. Look at the size of a baby's brain compared with an adult's! A baby doesn't even know how to move a ball when he is first born, bloody hell.

Messi wasn't born Messi. Messi had to practice throughout his whole career. There are lots of kids with really good skills for their age group but not all want to become professional footballers, which takes years and years of dedication, and removes them from friends in school that they are happy to be with. This is why Rhain Davis, who looked absolutely brilliant as a kid, might not even have made it through the Manchester United academy.

Look at Tiger Woods. Was he born a golfing superstar, or was it the fact that he played more golf in his childhood years than most play for their entire career? Woods started golf at 2 years old and played golf essentially full-time for his whole life. The Williams sisters were trained to be tennis players from childhood.

Children have no natural talent - they just find certain things interesting. On rare occasions, children actually are able to focus on one thing and take it up as a career. What did you want to be as a child? It's likely not what you are today.

There is no evidence to suggest that "natural talent" in a footballing sense even exists. It is arguably difficult and possibly unethical to find out, as it involves affecting the lives of children, and children are notoriously bad test subjects as they are not as rational nor logical as adults in their thinking - there is a huge degree of variability.

So no, I don't believe in "we have natural talent, so there" - I say, "where's the evidence that natural talent even exists?"

I'm an expert in both genetics and psychology. Everyone here is at least partly, or more likely, mostly wrong.

@OP: I think the problem is that scouts don't have a large enough repertoire of ways to describe the youth player. This is a big issue I have with the game. I think a scout can easily tell which youth players have potential. Imagine you are a scout, you will be looking for the football "brain" and the technical ability. You see many kids that are just bigger, and manage to do better because they have that superiority, but are not chosen to be the top players. On the other hand, you see that quick players are very commonly chosen to be top talents.

It feels like, that in some ways the scout "makes" the talent? i.e. scouts choose which players will be trained. In the game, this system is obviously flawed. I barely ever take my scouts seriously. In your example, I think scouts would rate the two players the same, because scouting reports are not very sensitive.

If you are suggesting that the "Judging potential" stat is strange and arbitrary, then I would agree with you. The scout's judgment of potential should be a function of the player's age, their CA and certain mental stats. OR if scouts use regression analysis to model a player's development, it should only be based on stats, but since stats in FM are unstable, this wouldn't be a good method. If "Judging potential" was in fact the ability for the scout to calculate those variables with the least error, then it is a useful stat for a scout to have. BUT again we have to be able to trust the game in that most of the time, a young player who has high potential should also be good at that age. So everything has to come together to make that one system realistic.

I'm an expert in both genetics and psychology. Everyone here is at least partly, or more likely, mostly wrong.

@OP: I think the problem is that scouts don't have a large enough repertoire of ways to describe the youth player. This is a big issue I have with the game. I think a scout can easily tell which youth players have potential. Imagine you are a scout, you will be looking for the football "brain" and the technical ability. You see many kids that are just bigger, and manage to do better because they have that superiority, but are not chosen to be the top players. On the other hand, you see that quick players are very commonly chosen to be top talents.

It feels like, that in some ways the scout "makes" the talent? i.e. scouts choose which players will be trained. In the game, this system is obviously flawed. I barely ever take my scouts seriously. In your example, I think scouts would rate the two players the same, because scouting reports are not very sensitive.

If you are suggesting that the "Judging potential" stat is strange and arbitrary, then I would agree with you. The scout's judgment of potential should be a function of the player's age, their CA and certain mental stats. OR if scouts use regression analysis to model a player's development, it should only be based on stats, but since stats in FM are unstable, this wouldn't be a good method. If "Judging potential" was in fact the ability for the scout to calculate those variables with the least error, then it is a useful stat for a scout to have. BUT again we have to be able to trust the game in that most of the time, a young player who has high potential should also be good at that age. So everything has to come together to make that one system realistic.

Completely agree. I have trained my eyes to spot which 3,5/4 star potential youngster will be good fast enough that he can be a part of my first team 22-player squad by the age of 19 (playing in Spain). Usually, I just don't even bother looking at such talents who are not already at least 1-star CA players, simply because they would develop too slowly for my purposes. This doesn't mean that all those falling through that grid will fail to reach their potential, only that they won't have the time to do so at my club.

As such, the scouting system works. I just wished the scout reports of quality scouts would be more critical of the youngster's chances of ever becoming that good in a given time period.

Instead of "could become a good BBVA player in the future" I want "the player is very fast and can use this to his advantage already, but his technical abilities are poor so I believe he may never become a player that dominates top football. Given time he could develop into a good player for most BBVA teams. He is a typical poacher and his quickness has allowed him to become the top scorer for his youth team on two occasions. He has never played competitive football."

... if the scout is good enough. This information would tell me that he should probably go for lower league play before attempting to move to the top division, and therefore would not fit my talent profile.