Suggestion - Player development system

Hey guys,

I'm a long time player (and lover) of the Football Manager series right back to the old dos Championship Manager 98/99 game I played back in my high school years.

I love the game and while i'm generally happy with the developments each year (the matches looks more and more real every passing season), there is something that is starting to bug me a little.

Ever since the first championship/football manager game I can remember, the two main stats which governed a players ability were "current ability" and "potential ability". These were good simplifications and guides back in the early years but I feel like the "potential ability" stat finally needs to be dumped in favor of something more dynamic.

To me it is entirely contrived and unrealistic to suggest X player can achieve say 180 potential while player Y who is just as good at 18 years of age can only achieve say 110. In real life, the factors which really matter to whether a player becomes great or not is about their personality, the coaching they receive, physical attributes, and luck with injuries. A proper development system would do away with the potential ability stat entirely and just set it as a standard number for all players with only those receiving the best coaching, working the hardest, getting game time at the highest possible level, etc likely to develop the fastest and the most.

At the moment the programmers at SI (or whoever does it), generally give higher potential ratings to youth team players from Barcelona than say Getafe not because the Barcelona youth players are that much better, but because they receive the best training in the Barcelona academy and then backwardsly call it "potential".

SI have already have put in stats for player personality and these already manage how quickly a player development (such as the professionalism personality stat) occurs. So the basis is basically already there to make the shift. A little bit of re-balancing will have to occur, but I think its clear that this antiquated glass ceiling approach to player development in the game isn't realistic, is outdated and can be changed relatively easily.

Thoughts anyone?

Are you x42 in disguise?

Players have limits in real life, PA reflects this in FM.

Yeah, potential ability is about as realistic as it gets because it is true. We all have hard coded limits to what we can do.

The real issue is the ability of coaches to know the potential ability of players, which is completely inaccurate. That should be removed from the game entirely.

To clarify, i'm NOT suggesting that there should not be any limit what-so-ever.

Rather that the limit should be set at a consistent 200 PA for every player in the game and its up to the coaching, personality, circumstances, game time at a high competitive level, luck with injuries, etc to determine how much and how fast they improve.

Have you heard of the "relative age effect" in ice hockey from Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers"? It's a good book and well worth reading if you want to a better understanding of how being born at a certain time of year can be a massive advantage in certain circumstances.

I can't provide a direct link to the book or ill get in trouble for copywrite, however I can provide a link to a scientific paper which explains the effect (http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/Relative%20Age%20Effect%201011.pdf). Here is the abstract for that paper:

ABSTRACT:

At young ages, a few extra months of development can make a big difference in size,

strength, and athletic ability. A child who turns 5 years old in January will be nearly 20% older by

the time a child born in December has their 5th birthday. In many sports, including hockey,

children born in the early months of the calendar year get noticed by their coaches because of the

superiority they demonstrate due to their age advantage. As a result, boys born early in the year

are more likely to reach the professional ranks of the National Hockey League (NHL). The

phenomenon just described has been labeled the relative age effect (RAE). Previous work studying

the RAE in the NHL has focused on individual NHL seasons, often encompassing many of the

same players across multiple seasons. We investigate the RAE using complete data on every

player who has ever played in the NHL. We focus the majority of our analysis on Canadian born

players and examine the RAE across hockey position and hall-of-fame status. For the first time,

we provide strong evidence of when the RAE began to manifest itself in Canada. Our change point

analysis indicates that the RAE began for players born since 1951. Finally, we make a case for

what initiated this change in the way young hockey players develop, particularly in Canada, which

produced over 90% of NHL players at that time.

TL;DR?

Basically a disproportionately large number of professional top level ice hockey players are born in the first half of the year. This is because the the cut-offs dates for who goes in what year is from (I think) January 1st. So a player who was born January 2nd is nearly a whole year older than a player born say December 27th yet playing in the same youth league. The older player is more developed in body, therefore is better and stands out relatively from his peers. Scouts see the player playing well and then gives that player extra training and attention, which further increases the gap between the young player and his peers. The effect of this is in the end, that the vast majority of professional ice hockey players are born in the first half of the year with very few in the later half.

This same thing applies to football. If I were to jump into a time machine, and go back to the year I was born, was given world class coaching and training, played at a high level from a young age, had a very high level of drive and professionalism (which I don't) and was lucky enough not to get any career ending injuries, etc. I could be as good as Cristiano Ronaldo. I'm not bragging, so could you and nearly anyone on here of able body.

Sorry if i've gone off on a bit of rant. If your not understanding my point, i'd seriously suggest looking up Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers". It explains the relative age effect much better than I can.

There's some more background about the RAE (Relative Age Effect) here: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CanadaAM/20120104/team-canada-freddie-hamilton-relative-age-effect-study-120104/

Hopefully this explains it better than I can.

edit: more here (http://psychology.msu.edu/pers_hambric3/PSY493%20Spring%202012/Week%202%20-%20Barnsley%20et%20al.%20%281988%29.pdf)

This same thing applies to football. If I were to jump into a time machine, and go back to the year I was born, was given world class coaching and training, played at a high level from a young age, had a very high level of drive and professionalism (which I don't) and was lucky enough not to get any career ending injuries, etc. I could be as good as Cristiano Ronaldo. I'm not bragging, so could you and nearly anyone on here of able body.

This is just wrong. Flat out wrong.

And you are confusing two different arguments. I have read studies on the relative age of players, and nowhere does it imply that anyone can become a superstar.

Dear lord do we really need to have another one of these threads?

Lonestar190 - Anyone under the right set of circumstances and with the right mindset can.

The problem is its very rare for someone to have (almost) exactly the right set of circumstances and the right mindset. Hence its very hard to become a world class footballer.

Messi wasn't born a world class footballer straight out the womb. He became excellent through playing regularly. Being quick helps too, but there's many quick players who aren't good footballers.

Lonestar190 - Anyone under the right set of circumstances and with the right mindset can.

The problem is its very rare for someone to have (almost) exactly the right set of circumstances and the right mindset. Hence its very hard to become a world class footballer.

Messi wasn't born a world class footballer straight out the womb. He became excellent through playing regularly. Being quick helps too, but there's many quick players who aren't good footballers.

This is wrong. You are talking without having done a bit of research. Look up Lance Armstrong. Studies have been done on his genetics that clearly show why he is a superstar. Without those genetics, he wouldn't be.

The same studies have been done on athletes around the world in all sorts of sports. You genetic makeup (heart size, oxygen manipulation, muscle placement) make huge differences at the professional level. Science is pretty clear on this.

Look what a quick google search found for me!

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/anatomyandphysiology/a/genetics.htm

From another scholarly article:

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-genom-082908-150058

"While training, diet, and mental fitness are all clearly important contributors to achieving athletic success, the fact that individuals reaching the pinnacle of their chosen sports often share both physical and physiological attributes suggests a role for genetics. That multiple members of a family often participate in highly competitive events, such as the Olympics, further supports this argument."

I agree genetics play a huge factor in sports such as athletics.

I'm not sure how you can suggest the effect is as large in football however. Pirlo is 33 years old now and is still one of the best midfielders in Europe, not because he has particularly amazing athletic ability, but rather because he is supremely skilled and has tremendous football smarts. Neither of these things are heavily influenced by genetics or pure athletic ability. Ditto Paul Scholes.

Given the current situation Lance Armstrong or any other road race cyclist for that matter is hardly good examples, I have every confidence that cycling will be the first sport to make use of genetic manipulation to enhance performance.

qaz, you're barking up the wrong tree.

My final word on the subject;

It has been done to death & the end result is always the same, fixed PA must remain in the game otherwise the user will be able to exploit the fact that every play can reach a 200CA, there is also the small matter that Jordan Roberts (Aldershot Midfielder) will never be as good as Wayne Rooney no matter how hard he tries or how good his coaching is also very important & far too easily dismissed by folk saying that PA is unrealistic.

I don't know who Jordan Roberts is, but if he's over 16 years of age, then yeah, in all likely-hood its too late for him to develop into the next Wayne Rooney.

However, if he were 3 years old, had the right mindset, coaching, etc, then I don't see why this guy couldn't one day be as good as Wayne Rooney*

* assuming his able bodied, has luck with injuries, etc, etc. And yes, physical attributes do matter, but much less so in football than in sports like athletics or cycling

There was an article in FourFourTwo a while back arguing the same case as qaz, that it is all down to coaching. I don't have it any more unfortunately, but there is research to back him up.

Although I don't agree with that viewpoint myself, you shouldn't dismiss him out of hand, it's a valid debate.

If you could find a way to get that article Haz32 i'd be very grateful

If you could find a way to get that article Haz32 i'd be very grateful

G-O-O-G-L-E

http://www.chicagonow.com/the-athletes-sports-experience-making-a-difference/2010/10/part-ii-fourfourtwo-soccer-football-magazine-details-the-talent-myth-in-sports/

Thankyou for that lonestar190. I did a google search myself but wasn't completely sure what to search for so didn't find it. Guess your smarter than I am

Has that article shifted your perception on the subject at all?

No, it is written by a professional athlete who simply states that he thinks his hard work was the key to success and that he didn't have innate talent. Hardly the most believable source. He backs it up with zero scientific evidence. Considering pretty much every scientific study finds to the contrary, I think he is just trying to get his name out as he makes money as a motivational speaker.

Research quick twitch versus slow twitch muscles, Lung capacity, acidic production by muscles, oxygen use.

If you want to be specific to football, research the number of issues that can make feet less than ideal. I found out about this when getting fitted for ski boots. My knees are slightly bowed inward (not noticeable to the naked eye), my right foot doesn't flex outward as much as it should, my arches are not ideal, my left foot's flex is bad both outward and inward. When David Beckham had his medical at Madrid, the doctor said his feet were perfect. You think that having perfect foot-knee alignment might have an impact on one's ability to perform to the highest level?

Now don't get me wrong, I could have been a much better football player than I was given better coaching and better drive. But based on my physical deficiencies, my ability to cut quickly, run as fast (and I was pretty fast), and have a solid standing support leg for kicking was clearly less than ideal. I could only compensate so much and no amount of training would make my knees line up. My guess is that Pirlo and Scholes have pretty ideal knee and foot alignment allowing them to look so effortless. An article I found on Scholes states that his genetics are the first contributing factor, but his lifestyle and discipline are what put him to such a high level and allowed him to keep playing.

This is why PA is limited.

Until someone can figure out a calculation that can predict the future and know this mythical limit with 100% certainty, there is no need to make it a limit.

A limit is unscientific. If a player peaks at some level X, then is his limit X or is it some higher level Y? Either argument can be argued.

The notion of a limit implies "destiny" and this has no place in a game where the future is actually created.

Nobody has answered this: A similar argument states that we have a limit to our passing ability. So why do we not have "potential passing"? Why does the game not go haywire without it?

Without "potential passing", we still have a limit to our passing - there will be a maximum. So you don't need to hardcode a limit, even if such a mythical one exists.

No, it is written by a professional athlete who simply states that he thinks his hard work was the key to success and that he didn't have innate talent. Hardly the most believable source. He backs it up with zero scientific evidence. Considering pretty much every scientific study finds to the contrary, I think he is just trying to get his name out as he makes money as a motivational speaker.

Research quick twitch versus slow twitch muscles, Lung capacity, acidic production by muscles, oxygen use.

If you want to be specific to football, research the number of issues that can make feet less than ideal. I found out about this when getting fitted for ski boots. My knees are slightly bowed inward (not noticeable to the naked eye), my right foot doesn't flex outward as much as it should, my arches are not ideal, my left foot's flex is bad both outward and inward. When David Beckham had his medical at Madrid, the doctor said his feet were perfect. You think that having perfect foot-knee alignment might have an impact on one's ability to perform to the highest level?

Now don't get me wrong, I could have been a much better football player than I was given better coaching and better drive. But based on my physical deficiencies, my ability to cut quickly, run as fast (and I was pretty fast), and have a solid standing support leg for kicking was clearly less than ideal. I could only compensate so much and no amount of training would make my knees line up. My guess is that Pirlo and Scholes have pretty ideal knee and foot alignment allowing them to look so effortless. An article I found on Scholes states that his genetics are the first contributing factor, but his lifestyle and discipline are what put him to such a high level and allowed him to keep playing.

This is why PA is limited.

Fair point.

Maybe your condition is such that no matter how much practice, coaching and on-field experience you had, your body would have made it impossible for you to be a top class footballer.

But I don't buy what your suggesting that having aligned feet is what made David Beckham a world class footballer. It may have helped, but there are ALOT of people out there with perfectly aligned feet who can't "bend it like Beckham". I really am not convinced Beckham as an example has any particularly wonderful set of genetics that make him a great footballer where others can't be. I'd love for you to be able to realistically come up with an explanation his genetics are so special to makes that huge of a difference when simple practice is a much simpler and more logical explanation.

Don't get me wrong, there are footballers out there whose genetic makeup has provided a big advantage which they would not otherwise have made it as footballers but for. Such as Drogba's height and athleticism, Ramires' stamina, Per Metasackers' height. But there are many more people with those attributes who don't become good footballers.

Bringing the subject back on topic to the game. I can see why PA would be justifiably limited for physical stats such as speed, acceleration and jumping. But I don't see how genetics have much influence on a how well an able bodied, reasonably fit man takes free kicks or corners.

Until someone can figure out a calculation that can predict the future and know this mythical limit with 100% certainty, there is no need to make it a limit.

A limit is unscientific. If a player peaks at some level X, then is his limit X or is it some higher level Y? Either argument can be argued.

The notion of a limit implies "destiny" and this has no place in a game where the future is actually created.

Nobody has answered this: A similar argument states that we have a limit to our passing ability. So why do we not have "potential passing"? Why does the game not go haywire without it?

Without "potential passing", we still have a limit to our passing - there will be a maximum. So you don't need to hardcode a limit, even if such a mythical one exists.

+1

I don't know who Jordan Roberts is, but if he's over 16 years of age, then yeah, in all likely-hood its too late for him to develop into the next Wayne Rooney.

However, if he were 3 years old, had the right mindset, coaching, etc, then I don't see why this guy couldn't one day be as good as Wayne Rooney*

* assuming his able bodied, has luck with injuries, etc, etc. And yes, physical attributes do matter, but much less so in football than in sports like athletics or cycling

Final, final word on this & it is in response to the highlighted sections, what age do Fred's enter the FM gameworld?

If it's was from birth & we can train them from their nursery years then we would have an opportunity to improve the chances of them making it in top flight football, as we only get players from 14/15 many of their core football skills are already in place & their likely final ability can in most cases be accurately assessed.

Obviously there are occasions when players will not show their full ability due to a lack of physical presence or mental maturity & discipline but many of these lads are lost to the game for good when they get released by various youth team up & down the football pyramid, I'd dare say that if you asked a large group of (ex)pro's who is the best player they have ever seen a large percentage would mention a lad they played with at youth level who is now a builder/plasterer/insurance salesman.

In summation any nature/nurture debate is rather meaningless as we do not get to see the formative years of every possible youngster & their progression from U-7's all the way through to U-18's with the inevitable shrinking of the talent pool that happens during that first decade of playing the game.

Well there is research that suggests it takes around 10,000 hours of practice to become highly skilled at something. So yes if you take a 3 year old and make them practice 2 hours a day every day they will become a top level footballer. But if you take 2 3 year olds, with exactly the same coaches and practice, by the time they are both 18 they will not be equally as good as each other.

Its the nature v nurture argument but for some reason some people seem to think that it is all inherently nurture. But really its an amalgamation of the 2, probably anyone cna be turned into a top level footballer (where athletic prowess is not always the be all and end all), however some will have more of a natural talent for it, and will always be better. So essentially, people should have a PA coded in as regardless of how much they train some will just never be as good.

I hate that 10,000 hours rubbish. I must have spent more than 100,000 hours at a computer keyboard but I still cannot touch type, I'm a better typist than I was 25 years ago but I think that I have reached my peak.

I hate that 10,000 hours rubbish. I must have spent more than 100,000 hours at a computer keyboard but I still cannot touch type, I'm a better typist than I was 25 years ago but I think that I have reached my peak.

I told you to use keyboard short cuts Alex, you know meeces are bad for your typing

Back in my call centre days I was the king of macro's, one click & a page was auto-filled for me.

I hate that 10,000 hours rubbish. I must have spent more than 100,000 hours at a computer keyboard but I still cannot touch type, I'm a better typist than I was 25 years ago but I think that I have reached my peak.

It isn't rubbish, there is a huge body of evidence into it.

You need to constantly be doing training that improves you. If you are constantly looking at the keyboard and typing with two fingers then you'll never get better. Likewise, if Wayne Rooney had just kicked a ball against the wall for 16 years rather than progressing to playing in the park, playing organised football and going to weekly training sessions, joining the Everton academy, playing against the best young players in the country, training with Everton's first team, playing against Arsenal, playing CL and international football... then he wouldn't be as good as he is.

I'd suggest purchasing Bounce by Matthew Syed (which details, among other things, how one road in Reading produces half the country's top table tennis players, how one man systematically trained his daughters to become chess grandmasters, and why Roger Federer is rubbish at real tennis) and Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, which summarise the evidence against the "natural talent" myth in a more digestible way than a scientific journal can.

Ah! I remember people writing hyper macros to process business critical data, then leaving the company and nobody having a clue how to unravel their macros

It isn't rubbish, there is a huge body of evidence into it.

You need to constantly be doing training that improves you. If you are constantly looking at the keyboard and typing with two fingers then you'll never get better. Likewise, if Wayne Rooney had just kicked a ball against the wall for 16 years rather than progressing to playing in the park, playing organised football and going to weekly training sessions, joining the Everton academy, playing against the best young players in the country, training with Everton's first team, playing against Arsenal, playing CL and international football... then he wouldn't be as good as he is.

I'd suggest purchasing Bounce by Matthew Syed (which details, among other things, how one road in Reading produces half the country's top table tennis players, how one man systematically trained his daughters to become chess grandmasters, and why Roger Federer is rubbish at real tennis) and Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, which summarise the evidence against the "natural talent" myth in a more digestible way than a scientific journal can.

I just have to look at my own experience in organised sport & those of my niece who is currently regarded as a very promising gymnast. There were a number of players much better than I was at youth level & no matter how hard I trained from about the age of 13 it was fairly evident that I would never make it as a footballer, the same goes for my niece although from the opposite end where she has masses of potential with the other boys & girls at her club not being anywhere near her level of ability.

The 10,000 hours theory probably does work for specific singular skills but not imho for anything as multi-faceted as football & will always be trumped by natural flair/ability, it also ignores the fact that in many of these studies there is no control sample as the cases referenced are existing or former top level performers who are then used to retrospectively confirm the hypothesis that practice, practice & yet more practice will in itself be enough.

As I said earlier it's a moot discussion in respect to FM as we only get to look at the near finished product in the form of Fred's.

I just have to look at my own experience in organised sport & those of my niece who is currently regarded as a very promising gymnast. There were a number of players much better than I was at youth level & no matter how hard I trained from about the age of 13 it was fairly evident that I would never make it as a footballer, the same goes for my niece although from the opposite end where she has masses of potential with the other boys & girls at her club not being anywhere near her level of ability.

Is that potential, though, or current level of ability?

Instead of saying she has a lot more potential (which you can never actually state with certainty, since you cannot see into the future), why not say she is just more talented?

The 10,000 hours theory probably does work for specific singular skills but not imho for anything as multi-faceted as football & will always be trumped by natural flair/ability, as I said earlier it's a moot discussion in respect to FM as we only get to look at the near finished product in the form of Fred's.

I just have to look at my own experience in organised sport & those of my niece who is currently regarded as a very promising gymnast. There were a number of players much better than I was at youth level & no matter how hard I trained from about the age of 13 it was fairly evident that I would never make it as a footballer, the same goes for my niece although from the opposite end where she has masses of potential with the other boys & girls at her club not being anywhere near her level of ability.

The 10,000 hours theory probably does work for specific singular skills but not imho for anything as multi-faceted as football & will always be trumped by natural flair/ability, it also ignores the fact that in many of these studies there is no control sample as the cases referenced are existing or former top level performers who are then used to retrospectively confirm the hypothesis that practice, practice & yet more practice will in itself be enough.

As I said earlier it's a moot discussion in respect to FM as we only get to look at the near finished product in the form of Fred's.

By the time you are 13 it is possible to have had 7000-8000 hours of quality practice so boys your age can easily be miles ahead of you, if you do 1000 hours of training for the next 7 years then so will they, unless you're already outstanding at certain aspects (Shane Long and Theo Walcott had a lot of practice at getting hit and running very fast respectively and are probably the best examples of players converting to football in their pre-teens) then you'll never catch up. Likewise, I bet your niece has been training since she was 6 or 7? Maybe earlier?

I referee very young footballers, mostly 7-8 year olds but some as young as 4. There is one team who I referee regularly who are a step above any other players of that age I have seen, four of them are now with Chelsea and one with Reading (this is in five aside football, with goalkeeping duties rotated- guess which player was in goal when the Chelsea scout visited!). Not only were they playing 7 a side football before most players this age were playing 5 a side (the 5 a side league has only just been introduced), but their manager is the most qualified in the league and they have been having extra coaching since they were five at Reading Town. Either you can believe that the best players in the area all play for one team because it is particularly good at recruitment (unlikely, given they have no resources to recruit 5 year olds with) or particularly good at coaching.

I don't know whether you'd consider music as complex at football, but I'll post this because I think it is interesting:

A study was conducted at a world class classical musical college in Europe, the teachers there were able to accurately predict where their pupils were going to end up (world class orchestra versus music teacher) and it correlated very closely with hours of practice. Or look at rock music: John Lennon met and started playing with Paul McCartney 10 years to the month before the release of Sgt. Pepper's; The Who made Who's Next 9-11 years after they took up their instruments; The Rolling Stones made Exile On Main Street 10 years after forming; Jimi Hendrix received his first guitar 10 years before he became famous.

Isn't it the other way round? Complex sports require more practice because it's a combination of many factors; raw sports like sprinting will always be down to "raw" genetics due to the fact it's harder things like muscles. There is no such thing as "creative sprinting".

Sprinting and indeed long distance running are "simpler" than football, so less practice is needed (8,000 hours rather than 10,000). However, note that sprinters overwhelmingly come from Jamaica, which is not genetically that different than most of Africa or the Caribbean (Bolt of course is a freak of nature as well as having trained very well), and long distance runners come from small areas of Ethiopia and Kenya where the environmental conditions are ideal rather than from genetically unique tribes.

Ok so surely the PA system is in fact an admission that potential is not decided at birth. All these factors about how you could be amazing if you had all the coaching in the world at age 0 is nice.

In FOOTBALL MANAGER, the regens enter the game at 14-18. By this time, they are not zero and thus have had a significant amount of time in their life. Think of PA as a reflection of what has happened in those 14-18 years in terms of coaching, mindset etc...

E.g. a sixteen year old with 140 PA obviously didnt work as hard/get coached as well in the 14 years earlier than a youngster with 180 PA...

By the time you are 13 it is possible to have had 7000-8000 hours of quality practice so boys your age can easily be miles ahead of you, if you do 1000 hours of training for the next 7 years then so will they, unless you're already outstanding at certain aspects (Shane Long and Theo Walcott had a lot of practice at getting hit and running very fast respectively and are probably the best examples of players converting to football in their pre-teens) then you'll never catch up. Likewise, I bet your niece has been training since she was 6 or 7? Maybe earlier?

I referee very young footballers, mostly 7-8 year olds but some as young as 4. There is one team who I referee regularly who are a step above any other players of that age I have seen, four of them are now with Chelsea and one with Reading (this is in five aside football, with goalkeeping duties rotated- guess which player was in goal when the Chelsea scout visited!). Not only were they playing 7 a side football before most players this age were playing 5 a side (the 5 a side league has only just been introduced), but their manager is the most qualified in the league and they have been having extra coaching since they were five at Reading Town. Either you can believe that the best players in the area all play for one team because it is particularly good at recruitment (unlikely, given they have no resources to recruit 5 year olds with) or particularly good at coaching.

I don't know whether you'd consider music as complex at football, but I'll post this because I think it is interesting:

A study was conducted at a world class classical musical college in Europe, the teachers there were able to accurately predict where their pupils were going to end up (world class orchestra versus music teacher) and it correlated very closely with hours of practice. Or look at rock music: John Lennon met and started playing with Paul McCartney 10 years to the month before the release of Sgt. Pepper's; The Who made Who's Next 9-11 years after they took up their instruments; The Rolling Stones made Exile On Main Street 10 years after forming; Jimi Hendrix received his first guitar 10 years before he became famous.

Sprinting and indeed long distance running are "simpler" than football, so less practice is needed (8,000 hours rather than 10,000). However, note that sprinters overwhelmingly come from Jamaica, which is not genetically that different than most of Africa or the Caribbean (Bolt of course is a freak of nature as well as having trained very well), and long distance runners come from small areas of Ethiopia and Kenya where the environmental conditions are ideal rather than from genetically unique tribes.

This is a logical fallacy. The fact that superstars practiced and trained a great deal does not mean that practicing and training a great deal makes you a superstar. Look at the Ajax academy. It takes kids from a very young age and trains them with some of the best coaching and training available in football today. Yet the academy turns out very few top caliber players compared to the number of trainees. Why? The difference between a Wesley Schnieder and an trainee who doesn't make it has to have a reason beyond training and coaching, as the training was largely the same. Interviews with the Ajax youth coaching staff discuss the heartbreak kids have having put everything into being a footballer and failing to make it, despite fantastic work ethic and desire. It is simply too much of a difference.

Your four kids who got selected by Chelsea, if they all trained the same hours from here going forward, does anyone think they will have the same careers? If not, why not?

Finally, these studies fail to mention a simple concept - people who are not good at things don't keep doing them. The kid who at 5 simply didn't have the basic coordination to play decent football quits, and finds something else. It's a fundamental human concept. Jimmy Hedrix is rumored to have played guitar until his hands bled, but he also simply understood the guitar at a level that most of us cannot comprehend. In the same way that some people are naturally inclined towards mathematics or languages, some people simple get it.

These anecdotal stories are limited because they ignore the vast number of kids who were pushed by their parents and didn't achieve stardom.

As for the books cited, please note:

"Queston: Most of the books you reference go back to the research of K. Anders Ericsson of Florida State University, known as the “expert on experts.” His theory states that an individual needs at least 10 years and 10,000 hours of deliberate practice in their chosen sport or skill to become world-class. Some authors take this literally and suggest that is all that is needed. Do you agree?

Answer: First, it’s important to recognize that the 10 year/10,000 hr rule is more of a general guideline than an absolute standard. Ericsson is very clear on this but perhaps owing to the simplicity of the message, it is quite possible that the general public has interpreted this in a more absolute sense. That said, I do think that Ericsson’s work is being somewhat oversimplified in that he, and others in this field, realize that there are obvious and necessary interactions between genetic predisposition, "deliberate practice", and even "opportunity" or circumstance. To what extent this has actually happened I cannot say. I can point to several examples in the popular media where authors have captured these complexities nicely (e.g., Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers, Matthew Syed’s Bounce, and David Shenk’s The Genius in All of Us). "

I believe the PA in the game should be raised, and I also believe training should be much more complex making it very difficult to gain a good CA. That being said, anyone who thinks that any person can be a superstar no matter what genetics is simply ignoring the great weight of scientific evidence on point and instead misreading (or simply mis-quoting) books written my people with no scientific training on why coaching and hard work is important.

This is a logical fallacy. The fact that superstars practiced and trained a great deal does not mean that practicing and training a great deal makes you a superstar. Look at the Ajax academy. It takes kids from a very young age and trains them with some of the best coaching and training available in football today. Yet the academy turns out very few top caliber players compared to the number of trainees. Why? The difference between a Wesley Schnieder and an trainee who doesn't make it has to have a reason beyond training and coaching, as the training was largely the same. Interviews with the Ajax youth coaching staff discuss the heartbreak kids have having put everything into being a footballer and failing to make it, despite fantastic work ethic and desire. It is simply too much of a difference.

Not all the trainees train as hard as each other! Remember your schooling days? You had the grafters and the slackers.

Ajax's academy is doubtless the same - the coaches give them plenty of attention, but some players will simply work harder, or recognise their flaws quicker, etc.

Nobody is denying that there is a genetic factor, and things taught as a child that help. Spatial awareness and hand-eye coordination can be honed as a child and both are important building-blocks for sport, for example - but some children might prefer books or mental tasks.

Also, remember that the children that enter the Ajax academy may have had different levels of football to begin with. The kid that plays football every lunchtime and after school for 3 years will have obtained around a thousand hours of football alone.

In other words, everyone reacts to training differently and everyone enters an academy differently. So if anything, it's a logical fallacy to deduce that training is the silver bullet. SCIAG never implies this, of course - 10,000 hours of practice doesn't guarantee anything, but Outliers suggests a strong correlation and explores the reasons behind it to argue causality.

Your four kids who got selected by Chelsea, if they all trained the same hours from here going forward, does anyone think they will have the same careers? If not, why not?

Finally, these studies fail to mention a simple concept - people who are not good at things don't keep doing them.

Reflected by the fact that if people aren't initially good at something, they will of course fail to obtain 10,000 hours. You need to dedicate a lot of effort to achieve 10,000 hours.

The kid who at 5 simply didn't have the basic coordination to play decent football quits, and finds something else. It's a fundamental human concept. Jimmy Hedrix is rumored to have played guitar until his hands bled, but he also simply understood the guitar at a level that most of us cannot comprehend.

Alternatively, is it the fact that he picked up a guitar so early on and grew up falling in love with music and guitars?

Look at Tiger Woods - he broke 80 at the age of 8. It wasn't down to the fact that Tiger "understood" golf better than anyone - he was introduced to golf at 2 years old (how does a 2-year-old understand golf?!) and practiced golf for years and years leading up to that point.

You could argue about some mysterious inner talent but Outliers breaks that down. You cannot measure talent - talent is unfalsifiable - there has to be a better explanation. And looking at Woods - it's argued that he probably had more practice at 8 than most golfers at 16. Practice, practice and practice.

In the same way that some people are naturally inclined towards mathematics or languages, some people simple get it.

I'm not sure this is true to some extent. Languages specifically - that's a mental exercise and involves learning to read phonetics and speaking. I would argue that those who read more books and participate in activities such as singing and writing will become better linguists, since they have a greater grasp of communication.

These anecdotal stories are limited because they ignore the vast number of kids who were pushed by their parents and didn't achieve stardom.

If someone is pushed, they will not make the hours required.

In addition, the hours refer to actual dedicated practice. Someone who hates the activity might hit 10,000 hours practice but by not taking it seriously, it's just a meaningless number.

I believe the PA in the game should be raised, and I also believe training should be much more complex making it very difficult to gain a good CA. That being said, anyone who thinks that any person can be a superstar no matter what genetics is simply ignoring the great weight of scientific evidence on point and instead misreading (or simply mis-quoting) books written my people with no scientific training on why coaching and hard work is important.

Nobody has suggested 10,000 hours is the silver bullet. It's almost a metaphor of sorts - 9,999 hours should be pretty much just as good.

I think it's more dogmatic and less scientific to assume that some people are simply destined to never become superstars in a specific field. You simply don't know how good a person could have been in a particular field, as you cannot tell the future. You can certainly make an educated guess, but you can never be 100% certain.

If you like, there is no evidence to suggest that genetics implies a limit, because we don't know how to calculate these limits. It then follows that a superstar could be born from anywhere - it is just that he will likely be someone who has deliberately dedicated hours of practice into it.

The correct coaching or "best" coaching has never guaranteed a player becoming a superstar player .

There are a myriad of things that can change a player over his career

Injuries,drink,lack of willpower,lack of basic ability,laziness . The list goes on and on . Often in real life a player is judged on potential and a scout that does not see the potential will not recommend him to their club as does this game ,so that makes the game realistic to have that

Saying that the best facilities guarantees great players in the game would make it simple just to get your board to upgrade them , sign up great coaches and hey presto its magic wand time and your whole team is packed with world class players

Nobody has suggested 10,000 hours is the silver bullet. It's almost a metaphor of sorts - 9,999 hours should be pretty much just as good.

I think it's more dogmatic and less scientific to assume that some people are simply destined to never become superstars in a specific field. You simply don't know how good a person could have been in a particular field, as you cannot tell the future. You can certainly make an educated guess, but you can never be 100% certain.

If you like, there is no evidence to suggest that genetics implies a limit, because we don't know how to calculate these limits. It then follows that a superstar could be born from anywhere - it is just that he will likely be someone who has deliberately dedicated hours of practice into it.

I didn't want to take the time to respond to the entire thing, as I think we are actually about on the same page.

I agree that you can never be certain that any specific person will never be a superstar in a specific field. There are too many variables and such, and saying that about any individual is absurd. However, it is equally absurd to say that every single person on earth could be a superstar in any specific field, i.e. football. Science has shown that there are genetic variables that effect our physical abilities, although we are researching how big of an impact these variables might be.

The OP states as a fact that he could be as good as Cristiano Ronaldo. This may or may not be true, but it is not something he can know for certain. His lung capacity alone might limit his stamina and ability to play to a high level for 90 minutes. (Read up on this, huge disparity among people).

Take my Beckham example from above, which the OP admits would give Beckham an advantage. If me, with my imperfect feet, were to follow the exact same career path as Beckham, with everything else being completely equal, Beckham would always be a better football player based on the genetic advantage of having better feet and therefore a more stable platform for kicking, running, etc.. If he and I practice the exact same number of hours, with the exact same coaching, and exact same dedication, he will always be better. If from day one we were both to have the perfect training, coaching and everything else in our lives thus reaching our potentials, he will still always be better. Therefore, my potential must be lower than his, even if it is only a point (in FM terms). I can never be as good as he can, no matter what.

Basically, while we never know who might be a superstar in football, we do know that every single person on earth cannot be as good as Messi.

xb42 raises a good point, its not just 10,000 hours that will do, it had to be 10,000 focused dedicated practice, and also as he says its just an estimate, more representative of how much time must be invested to become a star.

But again since i raised this point people again seem to be latching to one side of the argument that by practicing non stop you can become an expert at something, but i believe that cant be true and is in fact a mixture. 2 people subjected to the exact same conditions, put in the exact same level of practice, will not after 10 years have the exact same level of skill. One may have an innate propensity to pick up new information when practicing said thing, and therefore will be the better person. Is not this ability to learn a specific skill an innate talent? Brought out by repeated practice? And as someone else pointed out we get these players coming through at 16, the level of practice they have gone through at this stage would really determine how much further they can go.

This could always propose a different solution, i remember reading Johan Cruijff i believe it was, once say that once a player hits around 18 they can only (in his opinion i hasten to add) improve by around 20% as most of their learning has been done in those formative years. I don't think anyone can argue against the basic point that most learning would have been done in those formative years, therefore in FM speaking surely a players CA when coming through the youth system should directly determine his PA, they have gone through the best period of learning, and from now on at a maximum they will probably only be able to improve by i dont know say...90 CA points. So why not set PA constantly to 90 above whatever a youngsters CA is when they come through. Therefore with the right progression a star at 16 will by all rights still become a star and we wont have people disappointed with regens coming through with like 100 CA and 130 PA.

I realise it may still not be a perfect solution but.. its an alternative one, the terrible players can still be made fairly good by committing a lot to them in training, but not everyone will become a world beater, and it supports the arguments put forward here....

A classic anti-football argument is that it is unfair and silly that these uneducated brats should earn more money than hard-working people, what's so special about running after a leather ball along with 21 other men for 90 minutes once a week?

They are wrong. The selection process is the most extreme in any team sport, maybe in any performance activity.

The first obstacle for a possible football talent is the likelyhood that he will actually play football enough to become good at it. He must to be born in a certain country, and also likely in a certain area in that country (from South America, Europe and some parts of Africa), where there are qualified personel to guide him and motivate him the first crucial 14-15 years of his life.

Then it is an early feeling of success, enjoyment and status earned from playing football. A kid isn't likely to repeat indefinitely something he is not rewarded for. Thus many possible talents who for various reasons don't bother with the sport do something else instead.

There is also already at this age a great need for mental discipline and an urge to be the best, to be a winner. Many wonderful talents will stagnate at a very young age because there is no will to practice for hours on end every day.

When football becomes more competitive, in the early teens, the focus on physique increases, and youngsters with obvious physical problems are kept out of the game. Training is already beginning to demand more of them, both from their bodies and their minds. It is painful to be very tired, to tackle, to throw yourself into challenges. Most kids want to have fun and won't sign up for that pain.

At the point when youth teams of professional clubs are recruiting youngsters, they look at both the physique, technique, ability to read the game and his desire to win. Modern football requires quickness of body and mind as well as strength and stamina. He will need to have just the right combination of muscle types on limbs that can tolerate extreme amounts of training over a prolonged period of time, and there cannot be problems with the knees or the back even when these are subject to stress caused by stretching in height. Genetic selection, really. The social selection is one of football being the #1 priority. And then there is this elusive X-factor; football intelligence. It is the most rare of all these traits, and the prime factor is subjection to football and success while doing so, as explained above. 15 years of positive affirmation.

To get from there to the first team of that professional club (let's say this is in the lowly football nation Norway), he needs to withstand four or more years of tough physical training without major injuries, and he also needs to dominate at this level. This is very difficult for several reasons; firstly, his teammates aren't that good so he won't get much help to look good - rather, it is he that must make the others look better. Secondly, this is a period where there is little actual positive affirmation going on since he is not the best footballer around. Overcoming this requires even more competitive instinct and determination to become better, and it is in competition with others doing exactly the same. There are also many factors beyond his control. Who's on the first team, who's the coach or manager. He might be at the wrong club - as many Norwegian clubs focus less on creativity and skill on the ball than work rate and bravery. To put it simply, there is also luck involved here.

The jump from there to Real Madrid or Barcelona, to be among the best players in the world, he needs to be exceptional. In addition to having just the right combination of muscle types, just the right type of body, just the right mental inclination to go through 21 years of conditioning for this extreme specialization - which is rare - he also needs to be more amazing than all the other rare specimens who have done exactly the same, also for 21 years (or 25, or 35). Rare is not enough, we're talking one of a hundred in the world that could play at one of these clubs, so almost unique. So when Cristiano Ronaldo was bought for £70m(?) from ManU to Real, he was considered unique. A CEO can be replaced within a week, the president of any country is replaced regularly. Very few of these are unique, so C.R was of course worth every penny - as are his wages.

In FM this long tale of a little boy who became a professional football player and was paid silly money is replaced with PA. There is a genetic part and a social part of that PA. The genetic part is an unchangable fact, and by existing in the game as a name with a birthplace and a history, the social part is already set upon creation. At no point during this tale was the boy's potential ever changing, since I decided that he had what it took to get there, or acquired it. You could say that at age 0, his potential was uncertain, but at age 17 joining the local professional club what needed to be there was depending on his life so far with very little room for variation. What -could- have changed things were bad luck, or other issues concerning if he reached his potential in the end despite everything.

Needless to say, his buddy, who had better physique and was the star of the kid's team until he became a teenager and liked to hang out with girls at parties better than kicking a ball into a wall in the rain one Saturday evening, did not have as high a PA as him at age 17. No amount of "if's" at that point would change anything.

Yeah, potential ability is about as realistic as it gets because it is true. We all have hard coded limits to what we can do.

The real issue is the ability of coaches to know the potential ability of players, which is completely inaccurate. That should be removed from the game entirely.

I utterly disagree that there is a genetic limit (within reason) to any of us who arent afflicted with a debilitating condition. Even the game recognizes this by allowing players to improve seeming genetically hardwired abilities like speed and jumping. Also, this POV is eerily similar to the Eugenic nonsense that was floating around the UK, USA and Germany before Hitler.

This is just wrong. Flat out wrong.

And you are confusing two different arguments. I have read studies on the relative age of players, and nowhere does it imply that anyone can become a superstar.

One thing is..is their one definition of superstar? Riquelme and Sneijder have both been superstars at various points in their careers although their skillsets are different.

This is wrong. You are talking without having done a bit of research. Look up Lance Armstrong. Studies have been done on his genetics that clearly show why he is a superstar. Without those genetics, he wouldn't be.

The same studies have been done on athletes around the world in all sorts of sports. You genetic makeup (heart size, oxygen manipulation, muscle placement) make huge differences at the professional level. Science is pretty clear on this.

His sport is strictly physical. Team sports tend to be much more nuanced requiring intelligence and some amount of social skill to get to the top.

The first obstacle for a possible football talent is the likelyhood that he will actually play football enough to become good at it. He must to be born in a certain country, and also likely in a certain area in that country (from South America, Europe and some parts of Africa), where there are qualified personel to guide him and motivate him the first crucial 14-15 years of his life.

This bit is silly. There are plenty of great players who come from North America and Asia.

The PA system isn't perfect, but I've yet to see an alternative I'd like more. Limits do exist in reality, and while they mightn't be as rigid as the FM world expresses them, I really can't see what alternative you'd have to the PA system.

The PA system isn't perfect, but I've yet to see an alternative I'd like more. Limits do exist in reality, and while they mightn't be as rigid as the FM world expresses them, I really can't see what alternative you'd have to the PA system.

The PA system doesnt allow for players to mature properly and we have some players winning top leagues with an under 23 team. Perhaps there should be hard PA's for physical and tactical abilities but a flexible PA for mental attributes that would continue to rise the longer a player played.

In the game now 28+ players are a liability while in real life they are vital anchors for a club.

PA reflects natural ability ceilings, or just the level they can reach. Natural ability is obviously going to be affected by numerous factors. Genetics, Socio economic status, training time, parental support, spotted early by scouts etc. All these factors affect a players ability, some more than others and i'm sure it will be quite tough to program something without a widespread cap on players abilities.

The PA system doesnt allow for players to mature properly and we have some players winning top leagues with an under 23 team. Perhaps there should be hard PA's for physical and tactical abilities but a flexible PA for mental attributes that would continue to rise the longer a player played.

In the game now 28+ players are a liability while in real life they are vital anchors for a club.

Actually thus sums up the fatal flaw in the game for me. The more i've thought about it, the more i actually think that the issue isn't really that they have a limit represented by PA its how easy it is for players to reach this. Really its the fact that there is 1 development curve in the game, which just isnt reflective of real life, i mean in football manager, every player has peaked by about the age of 23 and this lasts generally until they are 32. Where as in real life this just isn't representative, you get some guys who peak at about 21 (Denilson) and decline around the age of 27, some people who peak at around 25 (Owen, Riquelme) and some who peak around 30 (Toni). In the game every player improves rapidly at 17-20 and has peaked by 23. Really every player should have a PA, but they should hit it early and have it last so long, the whole point is it should represent when they were at the peak of their power.

It would make the game more interesting too, you could potentially discover a guy who is maybe 25, playing in league 1 (or another lower league) with about 130 CA and 180 PA, as Luca Toni, if you sign him for a higher team and he starts performing well and training well he should develop to finally meet his potential.

So basically in summary, different development curves really removes the issue of hitting some glass ceiling at the age of 18 and should be more representative of how real players develop differently and should make it worth while looking for potential talent in people over 23 in hopes they are just a "late bloomer"

I didn't want to take the time to respond to the entire thing, as I think we are actually about on the same page.

I agree that you can never be certain that any specific person will never be a superstar in a specific field. There are too many variables and such, and saying that about any individual is absurd. However, it is equally absurd to say that every single person on earth could be a superstar in any specific field, i.e. football.

Science has shown that there are genetic variables that effect our physical abilities, although we are researching how big of an impact these variables might be.

Affect - not limit.

There is no evidence to suggest nature implies a limit of any sort. It certainly matters.

If it cannot imply a limit, a limit should not exist in-game.

The OP states as a fact that he could be as good as Cristiano Ronaldo. This may or may not be true, but it is not something he can know for certain.

Therefore if the OP is placed into the game, he should have the capability to become as good as Cristiano Ronaldo.

Inventing some reason that has no real-world basis because it's so hard to believe is not the answer.

Take my Beckham example from above, which the OP admits would give Beckham an advantage. If me, with my imperfect feet, were to follow the exact same career path as Beckham, with everything else being completely equal, Beckham would always be a better football player based on the genetic advantage of having better feet and therefore a more stable platform for kicking, running, etc.. If he and I practice the exact same number of hours, with the exact same coaching, and exact same dedication, he will always be better. If from day one we were both to have the perfect training, coaching and everything else in our lives thus reaching our potentials, he will still always be better. Therefore, my potential must be lower than his, even if it is only a point (in FM terms). I can never be as good as he can, no matter what.

What if you move to another club and play with better coaches, better players and play better? That is - worse "genetics" but superior nurturing?

Beckham did not have the world's best, most-optimal training - not by any stretch. You can have superior training to Beckham and quite frankly that could make you a better player, genetics or no. It only makes sense if Beckham has had the most optimal career for a football player - which clearly isn't true.

We don't know the limits of the human body - so we are in absolutely no position to imagine the implications of it. Given it's suggested Usain Bolt could run sub 9.5s for the 100m I think the limit of a footballer is absolutely miles away from scientific knowledge today, as we are no more certain about a very simple sport's limits!

Putting a limit into the game is therefore no better than imagining and inventing a fictional ceiling based on the unknown. Which sounds precisely like what you should not be putting into a game.

Basically, while we never know who might be a superstar in football, we do know that every single person on earth cannot be as good as Messi.

I'd like to see what scientific evidence you have that implies a limit thanks to genetics.

Genetics is nothing more than one of the building blocks that make up our development. It is silly to pick one of them and claim it implies a limit.

This could always propose a different solution, i remember reading Johan Cruijff i believe it was, once say that once a player hits around 18 they can only (in his opinion i hasten to add) improve by around 20% as most of their learning has been done in those formative years. I don't think anyone can argue against the basic point that most learning would have been done in those formative years, therefore in FM speaking surely a players CA when coming through the youth system should directly determine his PA, they have gone through the best period of learning, and from now on at a maximum they will probably only be able to improve by i dont know say...90 CA points. So why not set PA constantly to 90 above whatever a youngsters CA is when they come through. Therefore with the right progression a star at 16 will by all rights still become a star and we wont have people disappointed with regens coming through with like 100 CA and 130 PA.

We don't know the optimal training method for producing a youngster, though. Indeed, we might have multiple optimal methods depending on how we want the player to turn out (i.e. a D C, DM => two optimal methods for D C and DM respectively). Both of which could imply different limits.

In FM this long tale of a little boy who became a professional football player and was paid silly money is replaced with PA. There is a genetic part and a social part of that PA. The genetic part is an unchangable fact, and by existing in the game as a name with a birthplace and a history, the social part is already set upon creation. At no point during this tale was the boy's potential ever changing, since I decided that he had what it took to get there, or acquired it. You could say that at age 0, his potential was uncertain, but at age 17 joining the local professional club what needed to be there was depending on his life so far with very little room for variation.

Why the arbitrary age 17? Why is potential uncertain at 0, but certain at 17? Is it a straight line that goes from (0, 100) to (17, 0) on the certainty-age graph? Is it ever certain, given we cannot tell the future? Is it even known, without hindsight? Do we know how to calculate this limit? Is there a mathematical equation we can employ, or is there always going to be some form of guessing, wishful thinking, optimism/pessimism?

Could this argument be applied for a player who is 16? 15? 18? 15.5? 15.22392? What is the rationale behind picking 17?

The PA system doesnt allow for players to mature properly and we have some players winning top leagues with an under 23 team. Perhaps there should be hard PA's for physical and tactical abilities but a flexible PA for mental attributes that would continue to rise the longer a player played.

In the game now 28+ players are a liability while in real life they are vital anchors for a club.

Or we could do the sensible thing and implement the game's training logic such that a player's development matches reality (i.e. training with training schedule A improves muscle development as determined by study X, etc.), and a player's development is purely derived from that. If the training logic is correct, it follows that the "limit logic" is correct.

To put it more simply, imagine we have "Sprinting Manager" instead (to reduce the number of variables). You would be able to apply different training schedules, all with a sensible basis in scientific studies, with the results as described in those studies. Those results would in turn imply a growth in your sprinter's attributes, and will translate to a specific speed in the 100m finals. This is superior to looking at a sprinter's current physique at, say 16, performing some calculation with no real-world basis to determine some limit, and hoping that the basis you calculated that limit is actually correct, because if there is a more optimal training schedule, your simulation is incorrect!

A game is always more realistic when you deal in what you know, not what you imagine.

Why the arbitrary age 17? Why is potential uncertain at 0, but certain at 17? Is it a straight line that goes from (0, 100) to (17, 0) on the certainty-age graph? Is it ever certain, given we cannot tell the future? Is it even known, without hindsight? Do we know how to calculate this limit? Is there a mathematical equation we can employ, or is there always going to be some form of guessing, wishful thinking, optimism/pessimism?

Could this argument be applied for a player who is 16? 15? 18? 15.5? 15.22392? What is the rationale behind picking 17?

I picked 17 because that was when my example was drafted for a youth team. It could have been 16, 15 or even 14. Look elsewhere for your strawman. The more years pass from the virtual unknown of age zero, the more certainty there is about how good a player can become. At the end of adolescence many things that the player hasn't learned by then cannot be drilled into an instinct, something which is closely tied to personality (which is pretty much set at that age). If an action isn't instinctive at the highest level of football it is unlikely to be performed fast enough.

Affect - not limit.

There is no evidence to suggest nature implies a limit of any sort. It certainly matters.

If it cannot imply a limit, a limit should not exist in-game.

Do you just ignore the not only the links I posted earlier but also all the scientific research on the subject and just decide to speak from whatever it is you feel to be true?

It makes your arguments sound a bit ridiculous.

Let me repeat, every person who has researched this in depth concludes that genetics play a part in your potential. All of them. How important genetics are versus training is entirely up for debate, and something which I am interested in finding out about. But, and I will repeat this since you seem to enjoy ignoring it, everyone who has researched this has concluded that genetics play a role.

Affect - not limit.

I'd like to see what scientific evidence you have that implies a limit thanks to genetics.

Genetics is nothing more than one of the building blocks that make up our development. It is silly to pick one of them and claim it implies a limit.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.2007.141887/full

"Human physical performance is multifactorial and determined by a range of environmental (physical training, nutrition and technological aids) and genetic factors. For example, heritability estimates for the maximal rate of oxygen uptake (a key endurance phenotype) are typically around 50% both in sedentary individuals and in terms of their response to training (Klissouras, 1971; Bouchard et al. 1986, 1998, 1999; Fagard et al. 1991). This heritability is regarded as primarily due to genetic as opposed to non-genetic factors. Indeed, it has been proposed that endurance running ability in the genus Homo evolved about two million years ago (Bramble & Lieberman, 2004), possibly including the enlargement of the gluteus maximus muscle (Lieberman et al. 2006), implicating a positive natural selection for endurance running ability (and thus endurance phenotypes such as the maximal rate of oxygen uptake) in the ancestors of modern humans.

In addition to the maximal rate of oxygen uptake, at least two other endurance phenotypes (economy of movement and lactate/ventilatory threshold) also contribute to the endurance performance phenotype (time taken to travel a given distance) seen in elite competition. Current opinion also includes a fourth, related (but arguably discrete) phenotype, namely oxygen uptake kinetics (Jones & Carter, 2000). While the latter two endurance phenotypes listed (lactate/ventilatory threshold and oxygen uptake kinetics) are yet to be associated with specific genetic polymorphisms in a healthy adult population (and are therefore suitable targets for new association and case-control studies), each of the four endurance phenotypes will have genetic components, which collectively form the genetics of endurance performance.

To date, over 150 DNA polymorphisms have been associated with some form of human physical performance or a health-related fitness phenotype (Rankinen et al. 2006a). For many of the polymorphisms associated with human performance, there has only been a single positive association with a relevant phenotype. Notable exceptions to this statement include the polymorphisms of the ACE (angiotensin I-converting enzyme (peptidyl-dipeptidase A) 1) and ACTN3 (actinin, α3) genes that have been studied by several research groups, using a variety of experimental designs and population types. Replication of association with endurance performance or an endurance phenotype has occurred for just six polymorphisms (ACE, ACTN3, ADRB2 (adrenergic, β-2-, receptor, surface), AMPD1 (adenosine monophosphate deaminase 1 (isoform M)), APOE (apolipoprotein E) and BDKRB2 (bradykinin receptor B2)) and replication of the associations reported for all polymorphisms associated with human performance would obviously increase confidence in the previously reported findings. These observations are indicative of a field of research in its infancy. Nevertheless, the weight of evidence suggests, and indeed it is widely accepted, that physical performance phenotypes are highly polygenic (Rankinen et al. 2006a; Spurway, 2006)."

Post #35 makes the points I wanted to, so well done x42bn6.

I would say that whilst "PA" will never be determinable at birth or even at age 12 in anything less crude than "might be good"/"won't be good", by the age of 16 a player has done a lot of training and we can tell roughly how good he is going to be. Phillip Rolfe is the Chelsea researcher and boasts of never underestimating a 16 year old's ability, for example.

I would like it to become harder for players to reach their PA (it is hard already, but even harder), and players were assigned higher PAs. That would make the game less predictable and add the element of realism from real life, without creating the possibility of human managers working out a way to play the system and turn model pros with low CAs into Premiership players.