Charlie Adam only 2.5* in FM12?

Ah c'mon SI, i think he's a 3 or 3 1/2 personally. yet you give Any Carroll 3* and i would rate him a 2.5* at best.

Ah c'mon SI, i think he's a 3 or 3 1/2 personally. yet you give Any Carroll 3* and i would rate him a 2.5* at best.

Try in here.

Try in here.

Ah! thanks

2.5 sounds right to me for Adam.

And please have a better argument than "because I think he should be".

And please have a better argument than "because I think he should be".

So far he started every league game for Liverpool FC this season and played very well in doing so, easily our best attacking center midfielder minus Stevie G. Also a very good passer of the ball and a very good playmaker something that Stevie G isn't (playmaker). only downfall is his speed and not tracking back. all in all i believe him to be a 3* considering the downfall i mentioned.

a little better now x42bn6?

So far he started every league game for Liverpool FC this season and played very well in doing so, easily our best attacking center midfielder minus Stevie G. Also a very good passer of the ball and a very good playmaker something that Stevie G isn't (playmaker). only downfall is his speed and not tracking back. all in all i believe him to be a 3* considering the downfall i mentioned.

a little better now x42bn6?

So look at him in game. In my save he's started all games but 1, which he came off of the bench for. He's a good passer, creative , but a little slow.

Also, he hasn't attracted rave reviews in real life this year, but in the game he's on a 7.58 with 5 assists in 6 matches. He's been by far Liverpool's best player in a mediocre start that sees them sit on 10 points out of a possible 18.

Unless you can point to exactly which attributes need to be higher, and provide a good reason why, he's fine. In fact considering what I've heard Liverpool fans saying about him this year, he's actually far surpassing his real season in my save.

So far he started every league game for Liverpool FC this season and played very well in doing so, easily our best attacking center midfielder minus Stevie G. Also a very good passer of the ball and a very good playmaker something that Stevie G isn't (playmaker). only downfall is his speed and not tracking back. all in all i believe him to be a 3* considering the downfall i mentioned.

a little better now x42bn6?

2.5* means that he is about the same standard as the majority of your squad, so I don't see the problem with this.

Also, the original database for each game is based on a players performances from the PREVOIUS SEASON.

Also, the original database for each game is based on a players performances from the PREVOIUS SEASON.

i didn't know this to be honest.

There hasn't been enough season yet this year TO rate players... And if anything Charlie's stock has fallen since last season, not risen. He hasn't had the impact some hoped he would.

He's fat and overrated. Should have a stamina of 1 and "Always tries the killer ball".

Might also be an idea to play a few games with him and see what he's like. I find that the stars and assistant manager's opinion of a player can fluctuate and change depending on their performances.

I'd rate Charlie Adam a 3.5* to be honest. He is a very good midfielder and improved big time since his original move from Rangers

Star ratings don't even begin to tell the story in my experience. Just go with it and you may be surprised.

I had a 2 star rated defender at Palemero before. And I was going to replace him with someone better but he was on average of 8 or so so I left him.

He won world defender of the year a few times. Which surprised me. I was gutted when he retired

Anyway - star ratings aren't the be all and end all of a players performance.

....Anyway - star ratings aren't the be all and end all of a players performance.

Definitely true.

Star ratings are entirely meaningless as a unilateral way of judging players. You put a player with 100CA in a team in the 10th tier of English football, he will be 5 stars. You put him in one championship side and he's 3.5 stars, put him in another championship side like say the West Ham one and he's only 2 stars, but then put him in the squad of a premiership side that sold its CM's and only has youngsters he's possibly a 2.5 star, and then in the Man Utd team he is only a star/half star.

You could have a striker who is only rated one star for your team, but if his pace, finishing and composure are 15 odds are he'll score more through a season than a player who has only 10 for these, even if the rest of his stats bring him upto a 3/4 star.

The general guideline is subjective to each club but whilst I won't claim to be 100% follows this sort of trend:

0.5 - 2 Stars = Below what is expected in that position for a club of your size.

2.5 Stars = Around what you would expect for that position.

3 - 3.5 Stars = A bit above what you would expect, generally an improving side will have a lot of players here, and once they're cemented as a better team they'll become 2.5 star players.

4 - 5 Stars = Much above what is currently expected.

Steven Gerrard should be a 3.5 star player for Liverpool, he's a key player in a team that expects CA 125 - 150 players as 'squad members' in a Stoke team which more or less expects squad members to be more 110 - 135 range then he would probably be 4+ stars.

Star ratings are entirely meaningless as a unilateral way of judging players. You put a player with 100CA in a team in the 10th tier of English football, he will be 5 stars. You put him in one championship side and he's 3.5 stars, put him in another championship side like say the West Ham one and he's only 2 stars, but then put him in the squad of a premiership side that sold its CM's and only has youngsters he's possibly a 2.5 star, and then in the Man Utd team he is only a star/half star.

You could have a striker who is only rated one star for your team, but if his pace, finishing and composure are 15 odds are he'll score more through a season than a player who has only 10 for these, even if the rest of his stats bring him upto a 3/4 star.

The general guideline is subjective to each club but whilst I won't claim to be 100% follows this sort of trend:

0.5 - 2 Stars = Below what is expected in that position for a club of your size.

2.5 Stars = Around what you would expect for that position.

3 - 3.5 Stars = A bit above what you would expect, generally an improving side will have a lot of players here, and once they're cemented as a better team they'll become 2.5 star players.

4 - 5 Stars = Much above what is currently expected.

Steven Gerrard should be a 3.5 star player for Liverpool, he's a key player in a team that expects CA 125 - 150 players as 'squad members' in a Stoke team which more or less expects squad members to be more 110 - 135 range then he would probably be 4+ stars.

i thought star ratings were based on what is currently in your squad, not what is expected of the squad.

so if all of liverpools players had CAs of 90 and then you had one player at 170, that player would probably be a 4 or 4 1/2 star.

if all of liverpools players were 180, then a recently bought 180Ca player will be 3.5.

Charlie Adam is ****. I'm surprised he's even rated at 2.5* Absolute yard dog of a player!

his stats look good to be honest, solid player, will easily do well at Liverpool in the game.

He looks orite to me, should do well.

i thought star ratings were based on what is currently in your squad, not what is expected of the squad.

so if all of liverpools players had CAs of 90 and then you had one player at 170, that player would probably be a 4 or 4 1/2 star.

if all of liverpools players were 180, then a recently bought 180Ca player will be 3.5.

It may well be, as I said I'm not 100% sure but on previous FM's I've had the average trand of my squad go up but players still stay at 4 stars. Ryan Shawcross started out as a 3.5/4 star CB for Stoke on FM11, come 10 years later when my fullbacks have gone from 120CA to 150CA if not more, and that that Shawcross was now a rotational player with one of 3 other CB's all around the same skill he was still at 3.5 stars (he had gotten better slightly over the years too but not excessively because he isn't too far off his PA to start with) we were competing in the top 4 but the 'expectations' of the club were always 7th/8th so it seemed like players I was buying were mostly being judged on a team aspiring to that position, rather than one competing in the champions league.

If the star ratings are based on the previous season it should be above 2.5, coming from a Blackpool STH. He was nominated for footballer of the year or whatever it is.

Ah c'mon SI, i think he's a 3 or 3 1/2 personally. yet you give Any Carroll 3* and i would rate him a 2.5* at best.

The star ratings are relative to the other players at his current club in similar positions, thus Charlie Adam is being compared with people like Steven Gerrard instead of Keith Southern. There is also a variable in that coaches/scouts aren't 100% accurate in their reports and it is dependant on how good they are at analysing potential and ability.

The star ratings are relative to the other players at his current club in similar positions, thus Charlie Adam is being compared with people like Steven Gerrard instead of Keith Southern.

And compared to Gerrard who is Liverpool's best midfielder, Adam has 2,5 stars, and compared with some crap EPL midfielder he would probably be 3 or 3,5 stars. Coaches also might be wrong if they aren't the very best ones, and even then they might get it wrong.

Im pretty sure the stars are a way of gauging a player too rest of your squad, ive had world class players in FM11 that were only 3 stars because of some unbelievably talented players in the squad.

Doesn't matter what his star rating is his attributes make him a good EPL player.

Yes the Stars for players in your Squad are what your assistant thinks of the players in regards to others in the position in the squad. The Stars in the Scout reports are your scout opinion of the player against players in your squad but can vary from your assistants opinion. A scout might rate a player with 4 stars but your assistant might only rate him a 3.

But has AcidBurn says attributes are best to go by and the mentality of the player, can't rememebr who said now but I remember reading it.

A player with high is technical ability but low mental attributes will not preform to a standard regularly compare to a player with high mental attributes and lower technical attributes

The star rating doesn't matter. The problem with FM12 Charlie Adam is that he's taken a big drop in "Decisions", making him pretty useless as a playmaker and an all-around liability on the pitch.

Well his decision to leave Blackpool for Liverpool was a poor one

I thought the star rating is associated to his PA/CA.

I thought the star rating is associated to his PA/CA.

I may be wrong, but I believe star rating takes into account PA/CA as well as the player's ability when compared to the other players on the team/in the league. I believe it also takes into account a player's age, i.e. how useful a scout believes the player will be in the long-term.

There hasn't been enough season yet this year TO rate players... And if anything Charlie's stock has fallen since last season, not risen. He hasn't had the impact some hoped he would.

Not very surprising tbh. Average players tend to fall through when they go to good teams. 2.5 stars sounds about right.

Tore his hamstring for me, out for 3 months in pre - season. So drafted in Henderson in a 4-1-1-3-1. I use a Dm, Mcl, Amcr, Amr/l and St. Maxi has taken his opportunity (5 in 2) in the aml position, after using downing to cover henderson at amr.

He was doing quite nicely for me as my Ball winning Mcl tho

Does okay for me.

[video=youtube;7fA7cJ57ris]

The better your team is, the lower the stars will get overall.

For example in FM11, a 2* player was considered a good Premiership player in my long term Newcastle save.

That's all Charlie Adams is, a good player.