Stats in relation to CA in FM 2012

its an age old question and i wonder if it will be differant in fm 2012.

Basicaly if a player has a CA of 200 and stats that are say between 8-14 on most attributes, he will be better then a player with a CA of 170 but with stats that are mostly 12-20 (just examples)

On fm 2012 will the stats you see on screen mean anything or is it all down to CA and PA?

*EDIT*

OK just to put basicly.

The CA (current Ability) is basicly a template for the stats a player has, the stats are whats important in terms of how he performs on the pitch, the are hidden stats you dont get to see however such as mentality ones.

the PA (potential ability) is the cap the a players CA Will/Can get to.

its an age old question and i wonder if it will be differant in fm 2012.

Basicaly if a player has a CA of 200 and stats that are say between 8-14 on most attributes, he will be better then a player with a CA of 170 but with stats that are mostly 12-20 (just examples)

So the CA renders the stats useless, which is unfortunatly why i often gave up with the scouting on the games and used genie scout (cheating i know)

On fm 2012 will the stats you see on screen mean anything or is it all down to CA and PA?

CA and PA have never meant anything in the Match Engine. Attributes are what dictates how good your players are, CA is used as a short cut by things like the scouting system to tell you which player is probably better.

A player with a CA of 200 will have most attributes 12-20, incidentally. The 170 player would probably have attributes mostly between 10 and 18.

some attributes are hidden and certain attributes are more hevily weighted than others (pace uses up more CA than other attributes iirc)

its worth bearing in mind that its not always the number of high attributes but the right ones for the job, hence why in previous FM's dzeko has been a better player for a lot of FM players than torres, despite the latter having a higher CA

its an age old question and i wonder if it will be differant in fm 2012.

Basicaly if a player has a CA of 200 and stats that are say between 8-14 on most attributes, he will be better then a player with a CA of 170 but with stats that are mostly 12-20 (just examples)

So the CA renders the stats useless, which is unfortunatly why i often gave up with the scouting on the games and used genie scout (cheating i know)

On fm 2012 will the stats you see on screen mean anything or is it all down to CA and PA?

No he will not. It depends on where those points are distributed in his attributes.

People need to stop caring so much about CA and PA (and CCCs but I'll leave that alone for now) and look at the players attributes. Find out what attributes are good for each role in your tactic and evaluate them that way. Look to your coaches to evaluate your players mentally since you can't see those attributes (unless you are using genie scout).

There are plenty of times and examples of players with lower PAs outperforming players with much greater PAs.

One of the best players Ive ever had was a guy named Matias Alustiza.

Ok so basicaly stats are more important then CA/PA?

do you have to find a balance?

Would, going to extremes, a player with CA/PA of 1/1 but stats of 20 be better then a player with CA/PA 200/200 but with stats of 1's?

It wouldn't work like that. To have 20s (or high numbers) in key areas the players CA would have to be reasonably high.

Easiest way to look at is that CA is unimportant if a player has attributes which you want and he performs to the level you require, people get hung up on CA when they should just worry about how a player performs. In terms of the match engine, it is the attributes that make the player the CA is not used as such.

Ok so basicaly stats are more important then CA/PA?

do you have to find a balance?

Would, going to extremes, a player with CA/PA of 1/1 but stats of 20 be better then a player with CA/PA 200/200 but with stats of 1's?

Of course he would, as the CA of 200 would have no bearing on the ME where as his 1 for *insert key attribute here* would.

Edit

I know a player with a CA of 200 wouldn't have terrible stats anyway, just pointing out that the ME doesnt take CA into account when playing out games.

So what's the point in having CA/PA separately? Why not have it for the individual stat, or at least group of stats (mental, technical, physical)?

So what's the point in having CA/PA separately? Why not have it for the individual stat, or at least group of stats (mental, technical, physical)?

I do feel the who CA/PA stats thing is something that needs to be updated and made more dynamic, ive mentioned before that it would be good if a player changed his potential due to injurys or bad career moves etc.

Owen is a good example, brilliant at liverpool, but due to injurys and a bad career move to madrid, he hasnt been the player he was at liverpool since.

where as in FM a player peaks and then starts going down as he gets old, not because of any other factors.

the ability to have a PA that changes due to how he has been handled,train,play,injurys,experiance etc, i feel, is the next step.

I do feel the who CA/PA stats thing is something that needs to be updated and made more dynamic, ive mentioned before that it would be good if a player changed his potential due to injurys or bad career moves etc.

Owen is a good example, brilliant at liverpool, but due to injurys and a bad career move to madrid, he hasnt been the player he was at liverpool since.

where as in FM a player peaks and then starts going down as he gets old, not because of any other factors.

the ability to have a PA that changes due to how he has been handled,train,play,injurys,experiance etc, i feel, is the next step.

If a player doesn't get game time or stays in a lower league then he won't necessarily stay at his prime or improve to meet his potential. I've had a good prospect on FM09 who got worse cos he never got any game time. Sold him to a club in Holland and a few seasons later he has got amazing.

Another player on the same save couldn't get a game in at CM and so stopped improving. Sold him to a poor side in Serie A and he improved with game time, became captain and is a club legend for them and the best CM in the world. He pretty much saved them from relegation and turned them into one of the best teams in the league (over time).

You will notice that the AI doesn't train everyone up to their peak and poor transfers for players can mean they get stuck in lower leagues and don't reach their potential. It doesn't affect us FMers too much because we find ways to give game time to those who actually care about developing (not the rubbish 1 star potential youngsters).

" it would be good if a player changed his potential due to injurys or bad career moves etc"

That's reflected by not reaching his potential.

Obviously.

(edit for typo)

So what's the point in having CA/PA separately? Why not have it for the individual stat, or at least group of stats (mental, technical, physical)?

Because that's harder to do for all concerned, and doesn't provide much benefit.

So this explains why a player has clearly better stats than another player but my scout/assman recommends the one with the lower stats, because his CA is better. Good to know.

" it would be good if a player changed his potential due to injurys or bad career moves etc"

That's reflected by not reaching his potential.

Obviously.

(edit for typo)

Unless it's an upward move... In which case he "breaks" his potential. Potential is defined at the start, but predicts the future and it is impossible to predict the future.

Of course, as some might realise, I've written a fair bit on this elsewhere.

Regarding "Why CA?" - CA is essentially a "weighted average" that makes it easy to judge players - two very different players with the same CA are roughly "the same" in terms of ability, allowing SI to compare apples with oranges and apply similar treatment to things like scouting and valuation of players (imagine having a valuation model for full-backs, then remembering that left-footed players are rarer, so left-backs need to be more expensive, and... Can of worms (*)).

Still, "no CA" would be more accurate because players with "extreme" attributes essentially deserve better CA - a goalkeeper with dribbling 1 will have a lower CA than that same goalkeeper with dribbling 20, but both goalkeepers are essentially the same because goalkeepers almost never dribble. Similarly, an "all-rounder" might have the same CA as a player with extremely good attributes in key areas but poor attributes in non-key areas thanks to weighting. However, the latter player would be superior in the majority of cases.

Separate attributes for physical, mental and technical is one idea and it solves some of the problems; however, the most granular is to go even further and have it "per attribute" which would solve even more. If you like, one day, SI will have to open that can of worms (see *).

Aren't some attributes weighted 0 for goalkeepers for the very reason you cited?

Unless it's an upward move... In which case he "breaks" his potential. Potential is defined at the start, but predicts the future and it is impossible to predict the future.

Of course, as some might realise, I've written a fair bit on this elsewhere.

Regarding "Why CA?" - CA is essentially a "weighted average" that makes it easy to judge players - two very different players with the same CA are roughly "the same" in terms of ability, allowing SI to compare apples with oranges and apply similar treatment to things like scouting and valuation of players (imagine having a valuation model for full-backs, then remembering that left-footed players are rarer, so left-backs need to be more expensive, and... Can of worms (*)).

Still, "no CA" would be more accurate because players with "extreme" attributes essentially deserve better CA - a goalkeeper with dribbling 1 will have a lower CA than that same goalkeeper with dribbling 20, but both goalkeepers are essentially the same because goalkeepers almost never dribble. Similarly, an "all-rounder" might have the same CA as a player with extremely good attributes in key areas but poor attributes in non-key areas thanks to weighting. However, the latter player would be superior in the majority of cases.

Separate attributes for physical, mental and technical is one idea and it solves some of the problems; however, the most granular is to go even further and have it "per attribute" which would solve even more. If you like, one day, SI will have to open that can of worms (see *).

couldnt agree more, it would be good for players abilitys to become more human and less mathmatical, i can almost see the dice rolling behind the scenes and it takes the experiance out of the game some what. Also as mentioned above, The CA effects scout reports making them less usefull.

So this explains why a player has clearly better stats than another player but my scout/assman recommends the one with the lower stats, because his CA is better. Good to know.

It seems like scouts in the game care more about CA/PA than attribute distribution.

In that case, scouts in FM do not do a realistic job IMO. IRL scouts look at players' attributes - technique, movement, positioning, determination, workrate, quickness, speed, strength, etc. Based on that they determine and report how good they think that player is or could be.

I think in FM, scouts should also provide feedback on attributes and the way they rate players should include those visual attributes. Perhaps they should also provide recommendations as in what role could the player be used according to the TC roles.

On every one of my FM saves, my scouts recommend to me highly rated players (based on hidden CA/PA numbers that don't have effect in the Match Engine) but their attributes on most occasions are below par. On the other hand, when I do the search for players myself based on filtered attributes for each positions, I find players that possess the visual attributes I look for but my scouts do not rate them high or rate them lower than players with crappier visual attributes. That is so annoying to me, therefore I have pretty much given up on the scouting system on FM......

It wouldn't work like that. To have 20s (or high numbers) in key areas the players CA would have to be reasonably high.

Easiest way to look at is that CA is unimportant if a player has attributes which you want and he performs to the level you require, people get hung up on CA when they should just worry about how a player performs. In terms of the match engine, it is the attributes that make the player the CA is not used as such.

your opinion is nice and all, but if you don't work for SI and don't really know how ME works, it's just that... an opinion

your opinion is nice and all, but if you don't work for SI and don't really know how ME works, it's just that... an opinion

Yeah... It's not like people have actually tested stuff out and figured out how certain things affect the match engine. And we certainly haven't had input from SI members over the years on this!

As people have said, an all 1's 200 CA player is quite literally impossible. Imagine CA as the "Overall score" at the bottom of a game review. Could a film have 10/10 for story, acting, visual effects, sound effects, musical score and rewatchability, but an overall score of 1/10? No. Not unless the reviewer made a typo. The final score won't literally be a tally of all other scores divided by categories, but it will be a weighted average of all other scores. A low score in, say, sound effects might lower an otherwise 10 to a 9.5, while a similarly low score in acting could lower it to a 7 or 8.

If you took a striker's attributes (including the hidden ones we can't see), used the right weighting system in a spreadsheet and tallied up the final weighted score, you'd have his CA.

The way this works is that when the game starts, players stats are normalised to their CA's. If their individual stats are too high for their CA they are lowered. Make a 150 CA player with all 20s in the editor and load a game, see how they are now all 12 or so?

Now individual stats don't rise. Through training, form and ageing, and probably other factors like fatigue and morale, A player's CA (while lower than his PA) rises. When CA rises, the player's training and training focus determines which stat those extra CA points go into. It's a rise in CA that pulls his stats up, so the two can never be disconnected.

Of course, you can have flawed players with high CA but badly spread stats (A striker who's great at all the lower weighted stuff like tackling, and has mismatched stats like high balance but low dribbling or high finishing but no first touch or composure), and they won't perform as well as a more all round striker, or one specialising in useful, primary skills (ie a striker who can't pass, tackle or shoot from range, is 4 foot tall, can't direct a header and has terrible positioning, but is very very pacey, a natural finisher, composed and strong) but as a general rule Higher CA = better player, and higher stats = higher CA.

PA is nothing more than a cap on CA.

I have sort of a related question to CA/PA, not sure if others have seen/tried this.

If a player has a CA of 1, and all his starting stats are 1, but his PA is 200, would he eventually become a all 20 stat player?? Not sure how any PA 200 players are in the game, if any (Messi?? Ronaldo??)

Would be nice to see how actually quickly they reach their peak and what there TOP CA would actually be along with there stats

I have sort of a related question to CA/PA, not sure if others have seen/tried this.

If a player has a CA of 1, and all his starting stats are 1, but his PA is 200, would he eventually become a all 20 stat player?? Not sure how any PA 200 players are in the game, if any (Messi?? Ronaldo??)

Would be nice to see how actually quickly they reach their peak and what there TOP CA would actually be along with there stats

Not sure how it works in FM11, but in older version of FM, you would have PA 200 players in almost every game, but these where not the players that you know. It would be young players that have no PA set when the game starts. All they have set is how big a talent they are, reflected in their PA as a -10, -9 or -8 score, with -10 being a Messi level talent. Some of these would get a PA of 200 when a new game is generated. The only one I can think of in the past that was hardcoded to 200 was Ronaldo (the original, not Christiano).

I'll use completely wrong numbers since I don't think its right to give out genuine attribute ratings for positions but basically we don't decide as researchers that a player has 173 CA and then build attributes to fit in with this. We look at all the attributes and decide what that player is worth, now depending upon the position this weighs differently. For example if you build a CB with 15 finishing, 15 composure, 15 pace it will use less CA than a striker with the same stats. This is because for a CB the finishing attribute will have a weighting of say 0.25 CA. Whereas for the striker the finishing attribute will have a weighting of 1.5CA

Strikers also have to pay more CA for pace, lets just say for the sake of argument that for a striker 1 point of Pace = 3CA but for other positions its only 2CA. Players like Walcott, Agbonlahor etc with high acceleration and pace therefore have high CA's probably higher than you might think they are worth at times but that is an accurate representation of them. Often you will find if there are 2 players, both 150CA but one has 20 pace, 20 acceleration he will be far inferior technically and mentally to the 150CA player with 12/13 pace.

The hidden stats make a substantial difference too, you could have a 200CA striker with 20 finishing, 20 pace, 20 strength, 20 composure, 20 off the ball, 20 bravery and an excellent mix of PPM's but if his hidden mental stats are poor you'll find he might only perform in 5/6 games a season. Such extremities are unlikely, but that is how players can be designed ultimately.

Aren't some attributes weighted 0 for goalkeepers for the very reason you cited?

I'm not sure how the weighting system works but if a goalkeeper has dribbling weighted as zero, because anything times zero is zero, a goalkeeper can have dribbling 1 or 20 but still have the exact same CA?

Scouts will not only see a version of CA/PA in a player, but also have a look at Determination and the hidden attributes central to player development, and calculate the odds that the player will reach his potential.

This means that if you can find a 200PA youngster with poor (hidden) mental attributes, the scouts will rate him lowly. However, if you manage to successfully tutor him so that his mental attributes become good, he may suddenly reach his potential anyway.

I have seen this happen a couple of times. I would say that it is not worth the time and effort to try to find such players without the use of scouting tools, because the end result is so uncertain. There are more than enough promising talent found by the scouts to satisfy your club's needs. I recommend youngsters with comparably good CA, as there is a limit to how many CA points it is possible to gain in the 3-5 years before they become too old to be considered "talents".

To clarify - attributes are balanced against the player CA.

Each attribute has a different weight depending on the players's position. CA 200 will give a weighted average of X, CA 0 will give a weighted average of Y, the rest will be in between on a linear scale.

Its fairly straightforward stuff; the end result being that CA is ultimately reflected in ME performance.

Are attributes also weighted according to their level? i.e. Costs more CA to raise a Striker's pace from 17 to 18, than from 11 to 12.

Are attributes also weighted according to their level? i.e. Costs more CA to raise a Striker's pace from 17 to 18, than from 11 to 12.

I'm pretty sure not, as Paul says there that it's linear.

To clarify - attributes are balanced against the player CA.

Each attribute has a different weight depending on the players's position. CA 200 will give a weighted average of X, CA 0 will give a weighted average of Y, the rest will be in between on a linear scale.

Its fairly straightforward stuff; the end result being that CA is ultimately reflected in ME performance.

The end result is that CA is usually reflected in ME performance. A player's stats can be well distributed or badly distributed, so with the same CA end up better or worse than a player at +/- 10 CA.

Take, for example, the perfect central defender... with 1 jumping & strength. His CA could be 200 due to awesome tackling, marking, even longshots and passing. However he won't be able to perform at the top level.

not strictly, if you play said defender in the right way, he will still perform at the top level, if he has a CA of 200, he wouldnt have 1's in either anyway but for arguments sake, he will have other attributes you can use that will more than make up for his shortcomings.

I'm not sure there would be a way to salvage a 1 str/jumping defender. :-p

i dunno if he is a 200 ca player with both those stats very low he will have fantastic mental and technical abilities, play him as a cover sweeper that doesnt need to make aerial challenges and he would be fantastic. He will be a fantastic reader of the game and if played int he right way could be very effective.

To clarify - Stats are things like games played, goals, assists, pass completion %, average rating, etc.

Jumping, heading, finishing, stamina, pace, etc. are not stats, they are attributes.

Amazing how many people fail to understand this.

its semantics really, i dont think anyone here misunderstands what is being talked about.

its semantics really, i dont think anyone here misunderstands what is being talked about.

I know, but it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me, it really bugs me!

I know, but it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me, it really bugs me!

hahaha fair play then!!