"Is short of having the required potential to be better than XXX"

Isn't this a strange way to describe a player's potential? When I see this on a scout report, does this mean then that the player actually has the potential to be the same as XXX?

I never really pay attention to that. They always say XXX will be better than the player i'm trying to buy, yet they're always wrong.

I interpret it as "future back-up player."

Treat according to current policy.

I never really pay attention to that. They always say XXX will be better than the player i'm trying to buy, yet they're always wrong.

Same. Coaches are especially rubbish at judging potential.

If an assistant/scout says that a player can become better than a player in your squad, this means that he has higher potential. There are many factors that determines if he actually does, though:

A) His current ability. It is very difficult to have a player improve more than 3 stars in his career. If he is to become a "leading star for most premier league sides" I would say that he needs to be a "good player for most League One sides" or better as a youth player, and his attribute distribution must allow him to play well in his position at the correct competitive level already from the start.

B) His Professionality, Determination and Ambition attributes. They all need to be high for a player to develop at a sufficient speed, as "in the future" could mean "when he is 29", which is 6-7 years too late for most of us. Determination is not important for development per se, but is very central for good performances over time.

C) Random stuff like injuries, falling out with teammates, tutoring failures and successes... these things need to go your (his) way. Basically, he needs to be a good player from the start, he needs to play football and he needs to play well at a level he finds challenging; he needs to be trained well and be kept at 100% match fitness, and he must be tutored to become an ambitious and determined professional; if these conditions are met he will reach his potential. If not, he will not reach his potential.

So if your players -never- reach their potential at your club you are either unlucky or you're doing something wrong. Or both.

As a direct response to the OP: that line means he is not anywhere near of having the potential to become better than player xxx. Since PA is a set number or range, in the vast majority of cases this means he won't get enough CA points to become a good player. There are exceptions, though; tutoring may "increase" his potential, so there are hidden gems.

This is just badly worded. 'Is short of having the potential to be better' means he'll never be as good. It's meant to indicate that the PA of the player in question is significanlty lower than the CA of the player he's compared with.

This is just badly worded. 'Is short of having the potential to be better' means he'll never be as good. It's meant to indicate that the PA of the player in question is significanlty lower than the CA of the player he's compared with.

But only in the eyes of whomever has written the report. A less talented member of staff might over or underestimate a player's potential ability. My coaches/scouts, despite their stats, are as thick as two short planks and couldn't find their backside with two hands and a map, let alone a talented youngster.

But only in the eyes of whomever has written the report. A less talented member of staff might over or underestimate a player's potential ability. My coaches/scouts, despite their stats, are as thick as two short planks and couldn't find their backside with two hands and a map, let alone a talented youngster.

None of that is relevant to the question here though. What the sentence above is meant to say is that the player in question will be nowhere as good as the one they're compared with. It's not worded well because it should be saying 'is short of having the potential to be as good as' instead of 'better than'. Whether the report is accurate or not is another matter altogether.

None of that is relevant to the question here though. What the sentence above is meant to say is that the player in question will be nowhere as good as the one they're compared with. It's not worded well because it should be saying 'is short of having the potential to be as good as' instead of 'better than'. Whether the report is accurate or not is another matter altogether.

Correct. Technically, "as good as " and "better than" = 1 PA point, which is meaningless given the vagueness of both PA and the scout/coach's knowledge.

"Is short of having the required potential to be better than XXX"

"Is short of" means less than.

"required potential to be better than XXX" means PA of the "scoutee" > CA of XXX

So, "Is short of having the required potential to be better than XXX" is a way to say:

I've scouted John, and I think his potential is just a little bit too low to be better (in the future) than XXX is (right now).

"Is short of having the required potential to be better than XXX"

"Is short of" means less than.

"required potential to be better than XXX" means PA of the "scoutee" > CA of XXX

So, "Is short of having the required potential to be better than XXX" is a way to say:

I've scouted John, and I think his potential is just a little bit too low to be better (in the future) than XXX is (right now).

You rewrote the sentence but you didn't change the meaning. My point was just that the scout isn't telling us here what he really means. I think we all probably understand what this means, but it it's not correct to say "is short of having the required potential to be better" than somebody when you really mean that they won't be as good as that somebody. If you have the potential to be "as good" as somebody, then by definition you are still short of having the potential to be better than that player. There should be 3 mutually exclusive things a scout can tell you about a player's PA WRT another player X:

1) He can be better than X.

2) He can be about as good as X.

3) He can't be as good as X.