what the hell is up with the scouting?

i spent most of the summer (i am right at the start of season 4) trying to look for some quality youngsters for my arsenal side, all of whom are very high quality players i might add - anyway for some reason despite scouting the academies of a number of big and not quite so big side splus all the major under-19 squads the best player i got was ranked as 4* by my scouts (again all very good judign ability) and the only 4* man i found was a defender whose potential ability was described as "someway off that of kolo toure" so i am thinking wtf is going on here. so i downloaded the miniscout to see if this was in fact true - wrong of course it wasnt. my scouts are telling me players are total rubbish despite having a large potential ability to rival or beat many of my current players. why are they doing this? anyone else found the same issue?

i spent most of the summer (i am right at the start of season 4) trying to look for some quality youngsters for my arsenal side, all of whom are very high quality players i might add - anyway for some reason despite scouting the academies of a number of big and not quite so big side splus all the major under-19 squads the best player i got was ranked as 4* by my scouts (again all very good judign ability) and the only 4* man i found was a defender whose potential ability was described as "someway off that of kolo toure" so i am thinking wtf is going on here. so i downloaded the miniscout to see if this was in fact true - wrong of course it wasnt. my scouts are telling me players are total rubbish despite having a large potential ability to rival or beat many of my current players. why are they doing this? anyone else found the same issue?

Scouts on't always get it right, depends on their stats.

what are the CA of these players.

lets say your a scout.

and you scout an 18 year old who has a CA of 70 and a PA of 190.

when you look at that player (CA 70) does he stand out as having potential?

no. becuase the player is no better than anyone else his age.

so in real life why was michael owen as a 16 year old classed as pontentially brilliant? because for his age he was better than the majority of other players.

of course he could have turned out rubbish. he may have had a PA of 120 and a CA of 140. that wouldn't stop the press and scouts saying he is potentially brilliant though. because at that age he is definetly showing potential.

same for leo messi. same for wayne rooney etc etc.

the other thing you've got to note is that players are rated against your current players. so i believe a 4 star is quite good? i believe anyway.

CA of the scouted players range from about 70 to 140 odd. but i do have really good scouts and it makes it hard to actually go for a player with everyone looking like they arent good enough!

even the best scouts in the world are going to struggle to find some potential in a player who doesn't stand out from the other players.

it's not impossible, but if that player isn't playing regular football then it's much harder.

If all we had to do was send scouts out to look at players and they ALWAYS reported back the CA and PA, what's the point? I know FM cannot claim to be 100% realistic, but it has to TRY. And psychic scouting ain't a part of real life so it won't be part of the game, no matter how good their stats.

What Postal Postie says it absolutely right. CA is what's in front of them, so unfortunately you have to take a chance if they say the player is going to be good. Unless you want to have a quick peek with a cheat tool. For every Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney that the press big-up to the world, there's a Francis Jeffers and Danny Cadamartari.

It's how scouting works in the real world and how it works on the game. One of FM's more realistic features.

NB, for balance, I have Desailly who recommended me 3 kids in the Jan transfer window. I just had a look at them with Miniscout and he's fairly spot on. CAs 90-110, with potential ranging 170-188. A fourth he recommended is only a 156 PA, which is a half-decent backup. Scout CAN work sometimes, but I think it's only when the kids have a decent current ability.

i also believe that a players reputation can help a scout too.

if a young player is playing fairly regularly then this will help the scout make a decision.

if they are in a big league,like spain,but not playing so much then it'll prbobably be easier for a scout to say if they will be good in comparison to a player in a smaller league like america.

if i think about it then i can see it would be easier anyway.

because you can watch the 1st player in his smaller league, with lesser players as team mates, poorer training facilities, poorer opposition and not truly get how well he is

Scouting is completely bugged. For example my scouts have been rating a few players as a definitive buy. The day after i got promoted to the premier league those same players are rated as worthless. In a few weeks they are going to start to rate them as good buys. Its a mess if you ask me and its all because they insist on using relative comparisons and using your reputation as a guide instead of just rating players on some absolute scale.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jakobx:

they insist on using relative comparisons and using your reputation as a guide instead of just rating players on some absolute scale. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

now that i do agree with.

i think they rate a player in comparison to your current players.

which means a player who was 7 stars would only get 4 stars if your current players got better.

also they seem to rate them on whether they'll be good for the league your in.

but that doesn't mean the scouting is completely bugged.

what the hell is the point then of having current ability rated and then potential ability rated by the scout if PA recommendation is affected by CA anyway! the fact all my first team squard are awesome does not provide any justification for some of the best kids in the world being rated as total rubbish to decent at best!

I'm not surprised that you're only finding 4 star players while managing Arsenal with many great players. The scout's star rating is a direct comparison to the best player in the same position that's already in your team. So lets say you have Fabregas who is one of the most talented players in the game and your scout finds another MC and gives him 4 stars, well that means that he will probably be just as good or at least very very close to Fabregas' ability when he fully develops. It would be extremely hard to find a player with PA higher (rating of 5, 6 or 7 stars) then Fabregas', just like it would be hard to find anyone better than Messi.

And I'm finding scouts to be very useful. They found probably 80-90% of all my current youth.

One tip I can give you is when a scout does find someone who looks good, send another scout to look at that same player and see what he says. If there's a consensus then it's usually a safe signing.

Originally posted by Dirty_ACE:

I'm not surprised that you're only finding 4 star players while managing Arsenal with many great players. The scout's star rating is a direct comparison to the best player in the same position that's already in your team. So lets say you have Fabregas who is one of the most talented players in the game and your scout finds another MC and gives him 4 stars, well that means that he will probably be just as good or at least very very close to Fabregas' ability when he fully develops. It would be extremely hard to find a player with PA higher (rating of 5, 6 or 7 stars) then Fabregas', just like it would be hard to find anyone better than Messi.

QUOTE]

i used to come out with this.

basically saying that the user wasn't understanding the system properly.

which is correct.

but there could be another reason why the user isn't understnading the system properly and that is because the system doesn't seem to adhere to what we would expect.

that is:

an oustanding player should be 7 stars regardless of who you have in your club.

an average should be 3-4 stars.

this for me would make much more sense.

the current way it's done has no static point of reference to work from.

Calm a llama down

Calm a llama Deep down in the ocean blue

Like a barnacle sitting in a tight place

Laughing like a monkey on...

Pulling like a china boy

Calloway

Calloway

Calloway

Noise

Boing Tikka Masala

Boing Tikka Masala

Ooh tooth, tooth

(Scouting is crap btw, I only use it to unmask attributes and then make my own decision on the player).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by postal postie:

Originally posted by Dirty_ACE:

I'm not surprised that you're only finding 4 star players while managing Arsenal with many great players. The scout's star rating is a direct comparison to the best player in the same position that's already in your team. So lets say you have Fabregas who is one of the most talented players in the game and your scout finds another MC and gives him 4 stars, well that means that he will probably be just as good or at least very very close to Fabregas' ability when he fully develops. It would be extremely hard to find a player with PA higher (rating of 5, 6 or 7 stars) then Fabregas', just like it would be hard to find anyone better than Messi.

QUOTE]

i used to come out with this.

basically saying that the user wasn't understanding the system properly.

which is correct.

but there could be another reason why the user isn't understnading the system properly and that is because the system doesn't seem to adhere to what we would expect.

that is:

an oustanding player should be 7 stars regardless of who you have in your club.

an average should be 3-4 stars.

this for me would make much more sense.

the current way it's done has no static point of reference to work from. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly! currently the only player i have found of a 5* recommendation is Bojan, and he is the highest in the world! its impossible to scout players if your own squad are that good! i have retained most of wenger's squad and consequently they have improved to such high standards. but it means i am not told with any degree of accuracy if a player is actually a good prospect or not. its especially hard trying to sign kids.

if a 15-17 year old has been scouted as a "decent signing", he's coming to arsenal tbh. i've just upgraded the academy, but i have had several decent regens come through, Joe Barlow just played his first champions league game, and his average rating after 7 games in 7.43. he is 20, but i've nurtured his since 08/09, including tutoring him with cesc & others.

you have to improve these youth players yourself, otherwise they won't develop the way you'd expect.

@ llama3: I'm at Arsenal too and it is next to impossible to find a player who's rated 5 stars or more, however, Bojan is a special case as his PA is extremely high, I have no doubt he's the most talented striker in the game, that is until later in the game when more time has passed to generate more regens.

Anytime a scout finds a "good signing" I scout that player again with a different scout. Also some "decent signings" deserve a second look too. About 2 years ago in my career one of the scouts unearthed an MC in Brasil and said he'd be a decent signing, so I had him scouted again by another scout and this time that player became a good signing, so I signed him up. Once he arrived at the club, I sent him out on loan and then recalled him back after 6 months. Now when I look at his coaching report it says that he has the potential to be as good as Fabregas which is incredible. And it doesn't matter from which coach or scout I ask a report from, they all say the same thing about him.

So as you can see it's not only about going just by the scout report, you also have to give some players a chance and you'll rewarded.

Usually 4 stars means he'll be close as good as the player hes being compared too, so thats why you might not find as many w/ more stars as you already probly have a team of 180ca+

well i am a little wary of scouts rating a player as just decent PA when most of my squad's CA is 4 or 5 stars alone, which wud lead a logical deduction of 3 star potential being nowhere near good enough. but thanks guys

If my scout recomends a player as quality then when negotiating contracts my assistant manager only says he will be a good signing, who do you listen to??

I though do admit to being rubbish at the game, but i really enjoy playing it!

Scouting for my Welsh club is great. I send my one scout out to scout Wales and he comes back 3 days later saying he's done Wales and he's only found one player, a player whom he recommends I don't buy anyway cos he's crap, but he feels he ought to give me the details to show he hasn't just been in the pub for 3 days.

It would be nice if he'd spent a few months scouting and send me some proper reports of players at lower Welsh clubs since there are quite a lot of them and then I can decide whether the ones he selects are worth signing or not. Bit difficult to build a squad when my 1 scout doesn't find me any players

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dirty_ACE:

I'm not surprised that you're only finding 4 star players while managing Arsenal with many great players. The scout's star rating is a direct comparison to the best player in the same position that's already in your team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This right here I have an Issue with. I manage lower league squads, so when I get a great player (7*) - I train him to play many positions, (and more often than not, they have a few "Accomplished" positions anyway.) - So Imagine you're a poor side, You've got 1 player rated 7*, he plays ST, AMR, AML, AMC and MC. So now, every player you get scouted that plays in those areas, will be compared to him. So they will all be rated 3* at best, (unless they are legendary). But if they were compared to the NEXT BEST player in the squad, they would be rated 5* - 7*. I hate that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BenOooo:

If my scout recomends a player as quality then when negotiating contracts my assistant manager only says he will be a good signing, who do you listen to??

I though do admit to being rubbish at the game, but i really enjoy playing it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never ever listen to the ass man. end of.

They call him the shrew,

Arms in short, In with the claw

I'm little Jonny Frostbite

Movin' around

Freezin' you up

Freezin' you down

Like an icicle

Comin' in your tent like a cold night scissor bite

Arctic death,

Infinate night,

They call me tundra boy 'cause I move like an arctic lizzard

And when the blizzard strikes,

I disappear like a pipedream,

All thats left is the gleam,

nomis,two can play at that game

anyway on topic.

tbh i use scouting a lot and it uncovers some real gems, never managed a big club on the game, it bores me, maybe it only works well with lower teams.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turn it upto 11:

nomis,two can play at that game

anyway on topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha, but mine was on topic as the post was created by Llama and had "what the hell" in the title, so calm a llama down is relevant. I win, kiss my face.

wounded

Scouting seems pretty accurate to me. I also manage a top club with good players in the first team, and when a few separate scouts all give a youth 3 stars or more, the player is normally quite decent - when I take a look at his PA with FMM, it's usually 160 and up.

However, there are a few (I believe intentional) red herrings which all my scouts rate at 3 stars or more, then after I buy him and take a look with FMM, his CA is decent for his age but his PA is crap (120+ to 140).

This also happens when you ask your assistant to rate your youth teams.

I think this is intentional to model real life duds who looked promising when they are young but turn out to be mediocre.

I'd say that when several top scouts agree on a 3-star rating or better, 70-80% of the time the player turns out to have about 160 PA or better, which is really about as accurate as you can hope for.

I'm managing Liverpool with the usual top players and staff, btw.

The point is 3 stars out of 7 should represent a player who is not particularly good - below average if anything. None of them should be turning out to be exceptionally good players at a top club.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">originally posted by jakobx:-

they insist on using relative comparisons and using your reputation as a guide instead of just rating players on some absolute scale. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted by postal postie:-

that is:

an oustanding player should be 7 stars regardless of who you have in your club.

an average should be 3-4 stars.

this for me would make much more sense.

the current way it's done has no static point of reference to work from. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with both of you and think that they should change the system. I understand the 'stars' as being relative but the text string related to that shouldn't just change over night due to your team getting promoted.

In coach reports (scouting seems to be the same but I cleared my reports so can't check it) I had a player go from a 'leading star for most Championship sides' to a 'good signing for most Championship sides' the moment I got promoted.

How you decouple them I don't know but maybe the coach report should be static but the team report should include a relative measure, but to be honest I think once it remains static you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see a 'good championship player' might not cut it in the Premiership. As I said I do agree that it isn't very intuitive and is slightly confusing if you consider the point of it is that it is our 'virtual conversation' with our staff, and their opinion of where a player is at shouldn't change so dramatically in the text string.

As a long time player it's not really an issue since I have a reasonable grasp of attributes, but I can see a few new comers to the game scratching their heads when staff reports change instantaneously.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turn it upto 11:

nomis,two can play at that game

anyway on topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha, but mine was on topic as the post was created by Llama and had "what the hell" in the title, so calm a llama down is relevant. I win, kiss my face. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

kiss my face?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">originally posted by jakobx:-

they insist on using relative comparisons and using your reputation as a guide instead of just rating players on some absolute scale. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted by postal postie:-

that is:

an oustanding player should be 7 stars regardless of who you have in your club.

an average should be 3-4 stars.

this for me would make much more sense.

the current way it's done has no static point of reference to work from. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although though this idea would make more sense, it would actually harm the long term game. If there was a static point, or an absolute scale, you would not need tools such as MiniScout / GenieScout, because quite simply your scout would be just as efficient. How would it feel if your scout came back every 3 months with 5 7* players, of which you sign. You now have 20 7* players per year (assuming he finds that many) that you know are going to be world class. Not a good conclusion to the problem if you ask me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by postal postie:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turn it upto 11:

nomis,two can play at that game

anyway on topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha, but mine was on topic as the post was created by Llama and had "what the hell" in the title, so calm a llama down is relevant. I win, kiss my face. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

kiss my face? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Partridge.

Back to the topic - i think that perhaps the assman reports you get when youth come through should be a little more accurate - recently as chelsea, my ass man said one of my players was "one of the most gifted of his generation" and he had a PA of 92....

But scout reports are fine, the amount of poor signings there are IRL, as well as the amount of youth that get shipped around implies that IRL the process is as inaccurate as in FM.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

Back to the topic - i think that perhaps the assman reports you get when youth come through should be a little more accurate - recently as chelsea, my ass man said one of my players was "one of the most gifted of his generation" and he had a PA of 92....

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that not accurate in its own right, though? If the other youths you've had in previous years only have P.A's up to 65 / 70 - then surely he would actually be one of the most gifted?

Anyhow, I would like to see the youth reports LESS accurate. As I've stated in detail in another thread (that I just can't seem to find anywhere) - How can a man of any talents tell how good a 16 year old will be, when he is only 16? P.A should be a roaming factor for players up to the age of 19 or 20 - because how can someone honestly say "this kid WILL BE - This good" ("This good" being his P.A). Its impossible. I think the youth players P.A should be determined a few years into the players career, with the whole FM World effecting his output. (Training and Facilities, Club Manager, Team Mates level of play, Clubs level of play, The players own determination, aspirations etc and other mental hidden attributes.) - that way, gems could be unearthed from the lower leagues so long as they have the right guidance, and the right mental attitude themselves, and they also are free to be "created" in the higher divisions.

I personally feel if the system worked in this manner, you would see a much better spread of players being created in the early stages of their career.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NepentheZ:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

Back to the topic - i think that perhaps the assman reports you get when youth come through should be a little more accurate - recently as chelsea, my ass man said one of my players was "one of the most gifted of his generation" and he had a PA of 92....

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that not accurate in its own right, though? If the other youths you've had in previous years only have P.A's up to 65 / 70 - then surely he would actually be one of the most gifted?

Anyhow, I would like to see the youth reports LESS accurate. As I've stated in detail in another thread (that I just can't seem to find anywhere) - How can a man of any talents tell how good a 16 year old will be, when he is only 16? P.A should be a roaming factor for players up to the age of 19 or 20 - because how can someone honestly say "this kid WILL BE - This good" ("This good" being his P.A). Its impossible. I think the youth players P.A should be determined a few years into the players career, with the whole FM World effecting his output. (Training and Facilities, Club Manager, Team Mates level of play, Clubs level of play, The players own determination, aspirations etc and other mental hidden attributes.) - that way, gems could be unearthed from the lower leagues so long as they have the right guidance, and the right mental attitude themselves, and they also are free to be "created" in the higher divisions.

I personally feel if the system worked in this manner, you would see a much better spread of players being created in the early stages of their career. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were other youths that year who had higher PAs - that said, i can see how it could be correct, it just wasn't in this case.

Although i hadn't considered your second point, i can see the logic behind using CA rather than PA when judging young players, my only thought is that my assman (or whoever) would have seen the youth progress for several years through the accademy - perhaps they would be able to make an educated guess as to how good they will get?

Good point overall though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NepentheZ:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

Back to the topic - i think that perhaps the assman reports you get when youth come through should be a little more accurate - recently as chelsea, my ass man said one of my players was "one of the most gifted of his generation" and he had a PA of 92....

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that not accurate in its own right, though? If the other youths you've had in previous years only have P.A's up to 65 / 70 - then surely he would actually be one of the most gifted? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No because when it says 'best player of his generation' it implies he's one of the best players of his age in the world, rather than just better than the usual batch of regens you've personally had through your own youth system.

That being said I don't think this report should be any more accurate than it is now, and that's also how I feel about the scout and coach reports. If they were constantly accurate it would be very boring and easy to find the best regens.

Have people forgotten the complaints that were made during FM07 that it was far too easy to use your scouts to find the best regens in the game?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chopper99:

Have people forgotten the complaints that were made during FM07 that it was far too easy to use your scouts to find the best regens in the game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps then, SI should try and make the big clubs (arsenal, barca, real, man utd et al) compete more for these young players? I've seen an awful lot of the AI controlled clubs just ignore youth - arsene wenger spending £30m on a player, and not signing a single youth player? Happens i little too often in FM. IMO obviously.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chopper99:

Have people forgotten the complaints that were made during FM07 that it was far too easy to use your scouts to find the best regens in the game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps then, SI should try and make the big clubs (arsenal, barca, real, man utd et al) compete more for these young players? I've seen an awful lot of the AI controlled clubs just ignore youth - arsene wenger spending £30m on a player, and not signing a single youth player? Happens i little too often in FM. IMO obviously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. The biggest problem IMO is not the accuracy of the scouting, I quite like the fact it can be a bit hit and miss sometimes, but the fact that top AI teams seem quite poor at finding, keeping and introducing top young players into their teams. Once the main first team squads of these big clubs has deteriorated they seem to lack a decent number of quality younger players to replace them.

In real life this is unlikely to happen, particularly with managers such as Wenger and Fergison.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NepentheZ:

Although though this idea would make more sense, it would actually harm the long term game. If there was a static point, or an absolute scale, you would not need tools such as MiniScout / GenieScout, because quite simply your scout would be just as efficient. How would it feel if your scout came back every 3 months with 5 7* players, of which you sign. You now have 20 7* players per year (assuming he finds that many) that you know are going to be world class. Not a good conclusion to the problem if you ask me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will have to disagree with this. Just because the player gets recommended by your coach it doesnt mean he is right. Some of the players just never amount to anything and the game should reflect those errors. If you look at the current implementation the scouts are already pretty much useless at guessing player potential.

Another point to consider is that other clubs would also be able to find those same players as you are and snatch them from you. Granted the current transfer market implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NepentheZ:

Originally posted by Ched:

because how can someone honestly say "this kid WILL BE - This good" ("This good" being his P.A). Its impossible. I think the youth players P.A should be determined a few years into the players career, with the whole FM World effecting his output. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

as you say you can't truly say a kid will be 'this good'.

but then the scouts,the managers the coaches in game arn't saying that a kid is definetly going to be 'this good'.

that's us. because we are truly seeing how good a player can be if we look at editors.

a 16 year old in real life DOES have a potentail ability. a PA that he cannot go past.

so the concept of a hidden PA is not far off from the truth.

if in real life we got this great device that allowed us to see how good a child was going to be at every thing then that is exactly how the editors in FM work.

doesn't mean that if we get this device that all of a sudden we should be saying that people shouldn't have a finite ability. because they always will.

as long as we resist the temptation of save game editors and such then a hidden and specific PA holds no problems

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NepentheZ:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">originally posted by jakobx:-

they insist on using relative comparisons and using your reputation as a guide instead of just rating players on some absolute scale. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted by postal postie:-

that is:

an oustanding player should be 7 stars regardless of who you have in your club.

an average should be 3-4 stars.

this for me would make much more sense.

the current way it's done has no static point of reference to work from. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although though this idea would make more sense, it would actually harm the long term game. If there was a static point, or an absolute scale, you would not need tools such as MiniScout / GenieScout, because quite simply your scout would be just as efficient. How would it feel if your scout came back every 3 months with 5 7* players, of which you sign. You now have 20 7* players per year (assuming he finds that many) that you know are going to be world class. Not a good conclusion to the problem if you ask me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if i understand you correctly, what your saying is that the scout shouldn't be working along the lines of

'if i think this player is a 4star player that means he's around the 140CA mark'

further more that having a system that compares other players with your current players makes for a more fluid scouting system as the coaches dont necessarily scout your players CA correctly either.

is that correct?

if so then i would have to agree. doesnt' mean that it can't be done though.

it just means that there would be more changes than we had foreseen.

which is why its sucha mistake for us to say

'it's only a small change though'

because inevitably it isnt'.

we could still have a statis point. where 4stars is equal to aroune 140CA.

but then the scout still has to have his own thoughts on whether the player is indeed a 140CA player or not.

he may think they are only 110. in which case he would mark them as a 3star player.

then you buy him, he scouts him a bit more and then comes to the conclusion that actually he's more of a 4star sort of player.

your scout wouldn't be as efficeint as geniescout and such if it's coded to have the same mistakes as in real life.

You're right postie, about the way I intended the post, but I still have to argue the point of a static balance for scouts. In your example, you are allocating a set * rating to a set P/A Rating. In my opinion, this spells disaster, due to the fact that eventually, the richest clubs will have a monopoly on the youth players all over the world. Scouts seem to get it wrong as much as they get it right, this brings me to think that....

You have a scout with 20/20 ability. You know that his * rating is within range of the "true" rating, (so if he rates someone 5*, chances are they'll be 4* - 6*) - and on the odd occasion may be completely wrong, but this still gives you a view to signing a large majority of great players. Where as if you have a scout with average JA/CA stats, his range will be less accurate, (so a 5* player could be rated from 3*-7*) - and allows for a much larger margin to be wrong. There will also still be more than often the occasion where he is completely wrong. So eventually, in a long term game, the team with the best scouts WILL pick up all the best youngsters, which in my eyes is just as guilty as using a scouting tool.

You seemed to shy away from my "roaming" P.A for a young player, and feel you misunderstood what I was getting at. My idea is such that, its difficult to tell at an early stage in a players career just how good he will be. Now a "hidden P.A" for the Human is fine, but I'd like to have this hidden P/A given to the scouts, at least for a few years until the player starts to make a name for himself, (or not, as the case may be). In this instant, You could have a player with a 100 C.A at 16, and so the scout rates him 7*, because for his age, he looks amazing, but his "hidden P.A" (even to the scouts, for now) could only be 110, so he may not live up to his hype. In the same instant, you could have a young player rated at 65 C.A, and given 4* by the same scout, but this guy could have 180 P.A as a hidden stat, only revealed as he starts to make his way through his career. This would discourage bigger teams from snapping up the young prospects that early KNOWING they have a high chance of being good, because they could end up being completely wrong, and they guy amounts to nothing. It's also a way for smaller teams to hang on to young stars, (not that they would know they were going to be stars) for a few years to help drive the club, and also give smaller (or at the very least, selling) teams, a massive bargaining chip when it comes to negotiations.

I hope that made sense, and I hope my point came across a lot clearer, because I do think this could revolutionize the way the youth system works in FM.

Just to add...

I also feel my idea of the youth system would encourage FM players to try and develop youth talent, rather than expecting it to happen, (as most currently do, due to the scouting network). This would allow people to become more involved in the game, and in the way the youth system works, and IMVHO add a whole new, exciting dimension to FM.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NepentheZ:

You seemed to shy away from my "roaming" P.A for a young player, and feel you misunderstood what I was getting at. My idea is such that, its difficult to tell at an early stage in a players career just how good he will be. Now a "hidden P.A" for the Human is fine, but I'd like to have this hidden P/A given to the scouts, at least for a few years until the player starts to make a name for himself, (or not, as the case may be). In this instant, You could have a player with a 100 C.A at 16, and so the scout rates him 7*, because for his age, he looks amazing, but his "hidden P.A" (even to the scouts, for now) could only be 110, so he may not live up to his hype. In the same instant, you could have a young player rated at 65 C.A, and given 4* by the same scout, but this guy could have 180 P.A as a hidden stat, only revealed as he starts to make his way through his career. This would discourage bigger teams from snapping up the young prospects that early KNOWING they have a high chance of being good, because they could end up being completely wrong, and they guy amounts to nothing. It's also a way for smaller teams to hang on to young stars, (not that they would know they were going to be stars) for a few years to help drive the club, and also give smaller (or at the very least, selling) teams, a massive bargaining chip when it comes to negotiations.

I hope that made sense, and I hope my point came across a lot clearer, because I do think this could revolutionize the way the youth system works in FM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

scouts do struggle to rate their own players though.

i have a player called gerrardo bruna.

a few seasons in my coach said he would only be a 2* and that he was some way off silvas current ability

i gave him a few more games as sub and he went up to 3* and rated not far off silvas currant ability.

so the way i see it a coach doesn't really have the ability to rate a youngster so acurately.

when the game first came out i too was concerned about my coaches being able to say the nemeth was a 4* player and that they shouldn't be able to.

but same players show their ability at a young age and others dont.

of course it can be improved apon but i think what your suggesting is already in there just maybe not as well implemented as we would like.

it is also more than possible for a youngster with a high PA to amount to nothign.

my example of bruna is a case in point. he had a PA of the high 170's yet by the time he was 22 he had barely got into the 110's. so i got rid of him.

i've bought a young french goalkeeper who has a high 170's PA too but he's 19 years old and CA is about 100.

i can't see him getting near his PA if i'm honest.

i'm not sure how scouts 'see' a players PA. i always thought they based their decisions on a players CA and their reputation/league they play in. although they must get some sneaky peak for the game to decide what the coaches decision is.

for example there is a 16 year old USA keeper. his PA is about 80. CA 176.

my scout says he's rubbish.

but another keeper with about the same PA/CA he says is quite good.

the difference between teh two is that the second keeper is playing in a better league and has a higher rep.

Well someone explain to me how 6 of my chelsea scouts found no good/average players in Romania and czech republic

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stevio11:

Well someone explain to me how 6 of my chelsea scouts found no good/average players in Romania and czech republic </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

probably because you didn't load all players from these countries?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:

Originally posted by stevio11:

Well someone explain to me how 6 of my chelsea scouts found no good/average players in Romania and czech republic

probably because you didn't load all players from these countries? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i get this a bit too and it annoys me too, just because i don't have these leagues running doesn't mean they should be ignored completely!!

when i take a look at the czech clubs i found 2 decent youth players who are now in my U18s, why couldn't my scout see these guys!! this is an on going issue, not just with euro leagues but around the world, scout say no good players in the middle east, i have a look at the national u21s, grab 8 kids from a couple of countries for no cash, 8 work permits later i have 4 really solid back ups and 4 players i sold for profit playing well in the championship (1 now in the prem).

so i agree, scouting needs a lot of work

Ya I scouted Theo Walcott, first he was ranked 7*'s then in January 3*'s and February 6*'s. The scout was JA: 20 and JP:20, and Walcott wasn't injured. I wasn't going to buy him anyway because he can't play MR and his finishing is too low, but its the princible!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sydfc4ever:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:

Originally posted by stevio11:

Well someone explain to me how 6 of my chelsea scouts found no good/average players in Romania and czech republic

probably because you didn't load all players from these countries? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i get this a bit too and it annoys me too, just because i don't have these leagues running doesn't mean they should be ignored completely!!

when i take a look at the czech clubs i found 2 decent youth players who are now in my U18s, why couldn't my scout see these guys!! this is an on going issue, not just with euro leagues but around the world, scout say no good players in the middle east, i have a look at the national u21s, grab 8 kids from a couple of countries for no cash, 8 work permits later i have 4 really solid back ups and 4 players i sold for profit playing well in the championship (1 now in the prem).

so i agree, scouting needs a lot of work </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i dont think they're ignoring these countries.

it's just that there aren't many to scout. so they dont come back with much.

now the two players from czech clubs that you found probably didn't warrant much of a fanfair from your scouts.

so they didn't mention them in their report.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by postal postie:

i dont think they're ignoring these countries.

it's just that there aren't many to scout. so they dont come back with much.

now the two players from czech clubs that you found probably didn't warrant much of a fanfair from your scouts.

so they didn't mention them in their report. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering he bought the players i assume they were good enough. I also wondered why the scouts have so much trouble scouting countries with few loaded players. Its not like there are many players to actually look at.

Another thing that always bugged me regarding scouting were the stupidly defined regions. Why is africa made of five different regions instead of just one or two? The same with asia. Why for example are there only two countries in southern europe while everything gets lumped together in the central european region? What the hell were they drinking when they were defining this part of the functionality?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jakobx:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by postal postie:

i dont think they're ignoring these countries.

it's just that there aren't many to scout. so they dont come back with much.

now the two players from czech clubs that you found probably didn't warrant much of a fanfair from your scouts.

so they didn't mention them in their report. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering he bought the players i assume they were good enough. I also wondered why the scouts have so much trouble scouting countries with few loaded players. Its not like there are many players to actually look at.

Another thing that always bugged me regarding scouting were the stupidly defined regions. Why is africa made of five different regions instead of just one or two? The same with asia. Why for example are there only two countries in southern europe while everything gets lumped together in the central european region? What the hell were they drinking when they were defining this part of the functionality? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not necessarily. i've bought players that i think are going to be good and they turn out rubbish

a scout may look for players that are more or less equal to or better than the current players in your team.

you might look for the same type of players but have a differnet grading system for what you think makes them better or equal to in terms of PA/CA.

not sure about the way things get lumped within southern/centra europe.http://www.convertit.com/go/convertit/reference/countries.asp

here's a nice link though.

scandinavia is northern europe

everything else seems to be southern europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SEUROPE.jpg

looking at this map, if we were going to create a north/south/central europe then i would say italy and parts of spain are south.

i personally wouldn't say that all the red parts are south because some of it is central to me.

but then you can't really split spain up so that probalby gets all lumped into central.