Potential Ability - should it exist?

As we all know, players in FM have a Current Ability score (out of 200) and a Potential Ability score (out of 200). Current Ability is now linked with the attribute scores via a weighting system, and is obviously a very handy concept for research purposes. But what about Potential Ability -- is it actually a useful concept, and is it a realistic one?

In reality, I would argue that the only way to judge a player's "potential" is to infer it from his current ability. If a player is technically good when he's 16, then it's reasonable to expect that, with the right attitude, the right training and coaches, staying free of injury and the right match-playing experience, he'll develop in to a good player when he's older. Of coure, if any one of those things is missing (he picks up a number of injuries, he doesn't have access to good training facilities, or he's simply not very professional or determined) then he may not develop in to a much better player. By and large, this seems to be how Current Ability develops in the game.

So if we have two players in the game aged 16, Player 1 and Player 2, and let's say they both have Current Ability 100 and exactly the same attributes (including determination, professionalism, etc.). If, hypothetically, they had exactly the same training schedule with exactly the same facilities, played exactly the same number of games at the same level and both stayed entirely free of injuries, then we would expect them to develop in to similarly good players. Except, in the game, if Player 1 had been abritrarily assigned a Potential Ability of 120 and Player 2 a Potential Ability of 170, then Player 1 would stop developing far earlier. This despite him being just as hard-working, having access to the same facilities and getting the same experience.

Basically, I'm arguing that Potential Ability doesn't really need to exist. I don't think it reflects a real-life concept. A player's potential should be limited only by how good he is when he starts in the youth team, at 15/16/17/whatever, and his personality (determination, professionalism, etc.). Given access to good training facilities, lots of match experience, and staying clear of injury, a youngster who's good at sixteen should turn out to be a good player five or ten years later.

In the game, most scouts will recognise that Player 1 has worse potential than Player 2, and give him a lower potential star rating. But how would a scout do that, in real life? They'd surely just have to go on their current ability, their age and some aspects of their personality. If Potential Ability does have to exist, then at least scouts/coaches in-game shouldn't be able to read it 'directly'.

I agree,but i think the PA is there to stop players becoming too good. For example, using the basis you are using, if a player has good enough stats at 16 years old, then with the right training and match experience, any player could reach the 200 CA.

The scouts can get it wrong, and the dont say the player has a CA120, PA 180. Its rated on the star system, meaning that the scouted player is better or worse than the current best player in that position, which inevitably is what a scout would say in real life.

I can see where you are coming from but somes players cna just develop lots more than others.

Think of say a school, 2 kids start school aged 4 they have never done any maths before, they have the same teacher, but on become good at maths and the other struggles.

Or say when you are 8 you and your mate can't do any keepy uppies, you both practice for similar times but you can do far more becuase you are more naturally talented so can learn quicker.

Good point. I am inclined to agree, because we should never be able to accurately "predict" someone's potential, because we can't do that in real life.

Another difference with real life is that, when we see a hot prospect break into the first team, but never really have an impact, he may find himself down in the lower leagues, and people say that "he has not achieved his potential". However, in FM, it could be that he DID achieve is potential, but unfortunately for him, his PA was only 150, etc

No!

I've said this a million times, a players potential should depend on performances.

Example

Player A = Striker - Has'nt scored for 3 seasons and average rating 6.2(high P.A.)

Player B = Striker - Scores a goal a game and averages 7.5(low P.A.)

Yet player A will play for his Country and be bought by Big Clubs for absolute millions, whilst player B never gets called up for his Country and is generally ignored by the Big Clubs?

Poor

The scouts can get it wrong, and the dont say the player has a CA120, PA 180. Its rated on the star system, meaning that the scouted player is better or worse than the current best player in that position, which inevitably is what a scout would say in real life.

They give star ratings for current ability and potential ability, though. And their ratings for potential ability are *usually* quite accurate. By using the editor, you could easily set up the scenario of Player 1 and Player 2 I've laid out above, and I can guarantee you that most scouts and coaches will identify Player 2 as having more potential.

Great topic. This is something that is taken for granted and that nobody never question about it. I think that PA shouldn't be an absolute value. If you have a young player that has reached his PA (let's say 90) and he's still training well, playing a good amount of games there shouldn't be anything stopping his development.

Maybe if we have a growth rate attribute linked to the player potential.

In real life this is a really interesting discussion, there is something about it in a New Yorker article.

Think of say a school, 2 kids start school aged 4 they have never done any maths before, they have the same teacher, but on become good at maths and the other struggles.

Or say when you are 8 you and your mate can't do any keepy uppies, you both practice for similar times but you can do far more becuase you are more naturally talented so can learn quicker.

I see what you're saying, but in the context of the game, we're talking about 15/16 year-old footballers who've been given a youth contract, etc, so I don't think it's quite the same as the above situations.

I think the Ca PA system as it is has been redundant now for obsolete as such for the last few years, football players don't have an upper limit as to how good they could be then hit it. Thats it they will never improve anymore, can't really affect attributes through training so most of FM is becoming very cosmetic.

In real life there is not PA of any player players who play well are seen to be improving there improvement etc... should imo be linked to performances in the team. Hence the reason no one has ever heard of Drogba 5 years ago, then suddenly has an excellent year with MArseille and is subsequently snapped up by Chelsea and has become known as one of the Worlds best strikers.

Same example of this could be Pascal Chimbonda never heard of him when he was at some provincial French club moves to Wigan as another seemingly average foreigner plays well in his first season and has been steadily moved around the Premeirship pretty regularly since for good money as he performs well in it.

before he came to England and Hull I wonder what his PA was in France, pretty poor I'd bet but because he has played well in England since his Pa shoots right up. How they couldn't implement this in the game as they seemingly do every year it gets updated, surely they could do this in-game?

Just my tuppence worth.

I disagree with the above post. If we are using Drogba as an example then he would have always had the potential to be world class but it is all about realising his potential. Lets say his PA is 190, regardless of what club he is at he will always have a PA of 190. If he moves to a bigger club with better players and better training then he will have more of a chance of reaching his potential but every single player has a peak that they cant exceed.

Look at Ronaldo, 42 goals last year. I believe that that he is at his peak and he is going to stay there for a good 5 years but he wont get any better than last year.

I think the original poster and a few others that have commented on this thread, have a valid point, but I also understand that the PA is there as a rule of the game to help stabilize and balance the game out for more realistic game play.

Essentially I agree it should be reviewed.

So really people are saying that, instead of having a Potential Ability, there should be a likeliness that he will reach his potential instead, sort of thing?

Does it matter if two players have the same current ability at 16, play the same number of competetive games, have the same training mentalities etc.? If one is more naturally gifted, he will develop to be a better player.

I disagree with the above post. If we are using Drogba as an example then he would have always had the potential to be world class but it is all about realising his potential. Lets say his PA is 190, regardless of what club he is at he will always have a PA of 190. If he moves to a bigger club with better players and better training then he will have more of a chance of reaching his potential but every single player has a peak that they cant exceed.

Look at Ronaldo, 42 goals last year. I believe that that he is at his peak and he is going to stay there for a good 5 years but he wont get any better than last year.

So why in Football Manager games before did his PA not represent this?

Answer... Because his performances didn't warrant it. All indicative to the fact you are only as good as your last performance, as I said there should be no roof for players to hit, some click with certain teams, managers, tactics, areas etc... there is no magic rule.

So why in Football Manager games before did his PA not represent this?

Answer... Because his performances didn't warrant it. All indicative to the fact you are only as good as your last performance, as I said there should be no roof for players to hit, some click with certain teams, managers, tactics, areas etc... there is no magic rule.

Is that not just because it is very difficult to judge player potential at a young age? I agree that at a certain age potential may vary, but there is should still be a limit based on natural ability. Ronaldo was probably showing glimpses of his potential 'natural ability' at 16/17, with training coming into play with his strength, free-kicks etc. However, someone like Benayoun, although has good natural ability, I bet he was never considered as a potential world beater. Ronaldo is faster, stronger, fitter through natural attributes - Benayoun could never reach Ronaldo's levels because he hasn't got the DNA, nor has he the technique to strike a ball as well as Ronaldo - no matter how much he trained.

My point - some people have it, some people don't. I imagine it to be impossible to convert 'potential ability' into a football management game. I don't see what's wrong with the current system, just updating it season upon season.

i like the fact that in real life in the premier league there are players like paul robbinson who has been at dundee united & other players who are 26 & end up haveing a good season.

the next thing you know, thay are transfered to celtic or rangers & end up 10 better than thay were.

thats something that should be inserted into football manager? like you can give every player a pa. but there should be randon "pa bonuses" that a jumps a player's stats up by 10\20 if hes haveing a good season.

you can see players who switch from hull to west brom to some league 2 side, but when thayr 29 someone like liverpool will buy hi9m because hes done something or has had a brillant season.

Is that not just because it is very difficult to judge player potential at a young age? I agree that at a certain age potential may vary, but there is should still be a limit based on natural ability. Ronaldo was probably showing glimpses of his potential 'natural ability' at 16/17, with training coming into play with his strength, free-kicks etc. However, someone like Benayoun, although has good natural ability, I bet he was never considered as a potential world beater. Ronaldo is faster, stronger, fitter through natural attributes - Benayoun could never reach Ronaldo's levels because he hasn't got the DNA, nor has he the technique to strike a ball as well as Ronaldo - no matter how much he trained.

My point - some people have it, some people don't. I imagine it to be impossible to convert 'potential ability' into a football management game. I don't see what's wrong with the current system, just updating it season upon season.

I'm sorry I don't really understand what you are trying to get at?

We are discussing whether or not PA should exist not exactly how it works and your post provides no specific point on what you are trying to put across, maybe I didn't read it right but struggling to see where you are coming from. Sorry.

Could you possibly clarify, please?

I hate the concept of PA - the idea that when those 10 or however many players come through my youth team it is already predetermined that they may all be crap whatever I do training-wise and first team football-wise etc.

That said, I can't think of any immediately better system. Having a maximum cap on things is a very crude method for stopping functions with a large number of input parameters getting out of hand and heading off towards infinity at the drop of a hat, but it is very effective too. Getting a balance on player development without those caps would be very difficult.

So why in Football Manager games before did his PA not represent this?

Answer... Because his performances didn't warrant it. All indicative to the fact you are only as good as your last performance, as I said there should be no roof for players to hit, some click with certain teams, managers, tactics, areas etc... there is no magic rule.

I would say that the reason his PA was not that high in previous versions is because saying what a players PA is IRL is impossible. Who could predict that when Ronaldo was 10 playing in Mediera that he would be voted World Player of the Year 13 years laters? I do agree that when Drogba was at Marseille his PA on FM may have been 150. He then moved to Chelsea and his PA went to 180ish. That is because the researchers realised he is better than they thought. We are talking about his PA in the game which would have always been 190 from the day his mother popped him out.

I would say that the reason his PA was not that high in previous versions is because saying what a players PA is IRL is impossible. Who could predict that when Ronaldo was 10 playing in Mediera that he would be voted World Player of the Year 13 years laters? I do agree that when Drogba was at Marseille his PA on FM may have been 150. He then moved to Chelsea and his PA went to 180ish. That is because the researchers realised he is better than they thought. We are talking about his PA in the game which would have always been 190 from the day his mother popped him out.

That is why I am advocating that there should not be a set PA of which they hit and that is that. He probably played fairly averagely in the years previous to his transfer to Chelsea hence his lower PA and being nowhere near what it is now which is where my problem lies. I am not saying it is easy to say he, him and him should have 12, 166, and 190 PA respectively but that is where I believe the problem lies.

You may get a young player come through the ranks a little left back who is starting to look good he gets a few starts here and there then eventually becomes your first choice at 21 and performs superbly but there seems to be a problem, his attributes no longer improve even though he is playing like a superstar. You check his CA & PA and find out he has already hit his peak..... WHAT? at 21 and playing like that so he becomes stuck at that level for the rest of his career never improving an attribute again no matter the amount of games he plays, Leagues, Cups he wins or international honours....

Now is that a realistic scenario... NO...but in FM currently it is a very frequent occurence sadly.

i am only taking it from a negative point of view regarding the CA PA system so feel free to put across the otherside of the argument.

Your idea makes no sense at all. Then you could play no bodies and they would all turn out great.

Your idea makes no sense at all. Then you could play no bodies and they would all turn out great.

Well that was extremely well put/informative/ constructive, cheers.

Care to explain?

Who is to say all those nobodys play brilliantly? Consistently? Have effective attributes leading to their performances?

Think how many young players PAs' have been over-rated down the years, I am not saying this idea is full-proof and going to fix the problem for years to come but surely they must have been mulling about with other ways of implementing player development as we have had the system for years, maybe seen as if it ain't broke don't fix it as they have tried evolving other parts of the game and had their fingers burned by the joke and childish reactions on here.

So Lawsie any other thoughts or is your first post the limit of these?

If you don't look at the potential abilities of the players then it works quite nicely. The only problems that arise are when people start looking at values in the game that are not supposed to be seen.

Well that was extremely well put/informative/ constructive, cheers.

Care to explain?

Who is to say all those nobodys play brilliantly? Consistently? Have effective attributes leading to their performances?

He's saying that if PA was scrapped you could just bring 22 young crappy free agents to Man Utd and they would all eventually be great because they would all get great training.

EDIT: And I completely agree with Dafuge's post

If you don't look at the potential abilities of the players then it works quite nicely. The only problems that arise are when people start looking at values in the game that are not supposed to be seen.

That's a very good point and pretty accurate as people start buying players due to PA and not individual attributes which the game should be more in favour of. The way it was on CM 01/02 imo.

Where even George Boateng with only 144 PA compared and competed in the Champions League no problem.

I have often thought about the PA thinking with a 'similar' concept to the OP.

Its a fantastic discussion here, its a difficult one, but I think PA should exist, but I think it should be a variable number, that can change depending on several aspects that could include training facilities, standard of coaches, form etc.

Brilliant topic

I hate the concept of PA - the idea that when those 10 or however many players come through my youth team it is already predetermined that they may all be crap whatever I do training-wise and first team football-wise etc.

That said, I can't think of any immediately better system. Having a maximum cap on things is a very crude method for stopping functions with a large number of input parameters getting out of hand and heading off towards infinity at the drop of a hat, but it is very effective too. Getting a balance on player development without those caps would be very difficult.

I pretty much agree with all of this post. The CA/PA system has alot of flaws but until a better alternative can be offered there is no better way of modelling player's future abilities.

Well that was extremely well put/informative/ constructive, cheers.

Care to explain?

Who is to say all those nobodys play brilliantly? Consistently? Have effective attributes leading to their performances?

Think how many young players PAs' have been over-rated down the years, I am not saying this idea is full-proof and going to fix the problem for years to come but surely they must have been mulling about with other ways of implementing player development as we have had the system for years, maybe seen as if it ain't broke don't fix it as they have tried evolving other parts of the game and had their fingers burned by the joke and childish reactions on here.

So Lawsie any other thoughts or is your first post the limit of these?

yes i have more.. maybe you can understand it if i explain it better.

player A, 18 years old costs 20K player B costs 4 million and same age. If they play equal games etc as you stated why would they both develop at the same rate? Do they have equal talent automatically? Talent is thus removed.

yes i have more.. maybe you can understand it if i explain it better.

player A, 18 years old costs 20K player B costs 4 million and same age. If they play equal games etc as you stated why would they both develop at the same rate? Do they have equal talent automatically? Talent is thus removed.

I never once said potential is limited to games, ofcourse it is not and I never stated they would develop at the same rate, no person on this earth develops at the same rate as another at anything so that is a fallacy.

Noted your point but is far too concise in explanation and circumstance and a little too presumptuous as well as very basic in example. As it is simply not that... simple.

Absolutely well said. If we could play the game without player's PA , and it could be more interesting, like developing the player with our own training methods, player's determination etc. SI should consider this

So if we have two players in the game aged 16, Player 1 and Player 2, and let's say they both have Current Ability 100 and exactly the same attributes (including determination, professionalism, etc.). If, hypothetically, they had exactly the same training schedule with exactly the same facilities, played exactly the same number of games at the same level and both stayed entirely free of injuries, then we would expect them to develop in to similarly good players. Except, in the game, if Player 1 had been abritrarily assigned a Potential Ability of 120 and Player 2 a Potential Ability of 170, then Player 1 would stop developing far earlier. This despite him being just as hard-working, having access to the same facilities and getting the same experience.

Basically, I'm arguing that Potential Ability doesn't really need to exist.

Thisis what i am getting at. Your basically saying, that all people should have the chance to become world class players as long as they play games and use training facilities. As i said it removes the talent from the game and you would end up wtih everyone being world beaters. Every footballer has a potential they can reach, i reached mine just like ronaldhino reached his. His was very different. If i had trained with Barcelona and played in as many games as him in each of his clubs he has been at would it mean i would end up as good as him? No i could never be that good i simply do not possess the potential. I am not as gifted as him.

Thisis what i am getting at. Your basically saying, that all people should have the chance to become world class players as long as they play games and use training facilities. As i said it removes the talent from the game and you would end up wtih everyone being world beaters. Every footballer has a potential they can reach, i reached mine just like ronaldhino reached his. His was very different. If i had trained with Barcelona and played in as many games as him in each of his clubs he has been at would it mean i would end up as good as him? No i could never be that good i simply do not possess the potential. I am not as gifted as him.

That's the whole point of discussing it and putting points across like this.

You say you reached your potential but how could you? Did you try as hard as you could have? Take every opportunity handed to you? Get as fit as you could have? Apply more than anyone? Or was it a case of you didn't actually have the ability? Didn't work hard enough? Injured? Fall away from the game?

You see there are far too many possibilities and the fact very few if any reach their real potential. And yes ability at the start pretty much determines your real potential if you have any.

Think about it this way, an example I will use is in the gym as follows.....

You usually run 10 mins on the treadmill at say level 10 during your session,

you decide you are going to try and really push yourself for 11mins..........(nearly there....phewww.....*wait I could probably surpass 11 mins if I really want to, lets try*......)

My point there is that if you try push yourself that little bit further and you get there you then begin to think I could probably go even further again and so on.....

Maybe people like Ronaldinho are just as you say more naturally gifted than 99.9% of the world population but they still may not apply themselves the same way Roy Keane did, but still he competed at the same level as Ronaldinho through sheer hard work and graft and he got there and the reputation by his performances.

Thisis what i am getting at. Your basically saying, that all people should have the chance to become world class players as long as they play games and use training facilities. As i said it removes the talent from the game and you would end up wtih everyone being world beaters. Every footballer has a potential they can reach, i reached mine just like ronaldhino reached his. His was very different. If i had trained with Barcelona and played in as many games as him in each of his clubs he has been at would it mean i would end up as good as him? No i could never be that good i simply do not possess the potential. I am not as gifted as him.

Nah, I'm not saying that.

Potential ability should be limited by a player's current ability, and the various other factors that I've already mentioned. When you were 16, and Ronaldinho was 16, your current abililties were very different. You were never going to be a world class player, but presumably Ronaldinho was showing glimpses of that at a young age. You just need to build in a sensible development curve to stop players hitting overly high current abilities. If you want to build in a degree of randomness so players develop at slightly different rates, then that's fine.

If you don't look at the potential abilities of the players then it works quite nicely. The only problems that arise are when people start looking at values in the game that are not supposed to be seen.

But as I've said, the PA values *are* used by the AI as far as I can see. They're used by your own scouts, by coaches and by some AI managers. Of course, none of these estimate it 100% correctly, but they can somehow differentiate between the two youngsters with the same ability and attributes, but different PA values. Maybe potential *is* estimated from current abililty and age, by the AI (I stand to be corrected), but that doesn't seem to be the case.

As someone has said upthread, if a 20 year old happens to reach his potential ability of 120, or whatever, and yet he's still getting lots of match experience and training hard every day with excellent facilities, is it realistic to think that he simply won't get any better for the rest of his career?

I agree with some posts that are suggesting that PA shouldn't be a fixed and unamovible number. Examples are common, like Luca Toni who played in the Italian lower leagues until he was in his mid-20's, or Peter Crouch who even played for an obscure swedish team. Michael Ballack situation would be arguable, but considering that he got up his rep during his exceptional season with Leverkusen and NO ONE knew about him or considered him a world class mid. Other examples are Fabio Grosso, Eduardo (great season in Croatia and now he is playing for...), Guiza, David Villa, Camoranesi, Huntelaar. All of them struggled at some time in their career until they got a huge season and never stopped since.

What I'm saying is that there should be a factor that shakes the PA a little bit BUT NOT ALWAYS, like performances, training, tutoring and the like. I would like so much to se what was the PA of Huntelaar in CM 01 or 02 and compare to the one on FM 09. That's where i'm pointing out.

I think there need to be much less reliance and priority with a players PA and more with that players individual attributes also.

The PA/CA system as it is, is quite flawed, but could be changed to work much better. As people have said, there are several main categories, technical, mental and physical, as 3 main sections, but then within them there are certain attributes that can be changed over time more so than others. Within reason, you might be able to get a bit faster with training, but you can get much stronger etc. And mental abilities if they had their own PA/CA system could develop better over time.

It's hard to say what would be the best way to make it work, on a simple level this works and is easier to implement than say having abilities grouped on how easy they are to improve, how long they stay at their peak and at what ages dramatic increases end and whatnot, even if the latter is more realistic.

If you don't look at the potential abilities of the players then it works quite nicely. The only problems that arise are when people start looking at values in the game that are not supposed to be seen.

Agreed. However, the current system is not perfect and the OP has a point. Assume that the young player reaches his PA very fast, when he is 19, and then stops developing. I guess such things happen IRL, but they are not dependant on the opinion of a researcher or the luck factor of a generated random number. Anyway, I think that the OP is basically saying, give this youngster a chance to be truly great! Just a chance, that's all he's asking for.

I have given it a lot of thought since CM4 when I started caring about how Football Manager (CM back then) works. I think I have found a solution that I personally prefer than the current system. Now, it may be too much work for little to gain, but I still prefer it. When a game is so good and complex as FM is, it takes a lot of work to improve it just a little bit anyway. Here is how it goes:

Alternative method to the Potential Ability System we have at present:

My idea is that Potential Ability could be recalculated for each player every 6 months. Basically, in this system the "Potential Ability 2" (PA2) would describe HOW MUCH A PLAYER CAN IMPROVE OR DECLINE WITHIN 6 MONTHS. Not his whole life. It will not be a number between [CA, 200]. It will be a number roughly in the space [-40, 40]. What this means is that each player has a chance of going roughly 3 points up or down in all his important attributes within the following 6 months.

PA2 will be close to zero for most players and it will only turn out to be a number close to the edges (-40 or 40) for very few players every 6 months. So, for those aquainted with statistics) it will resemble something like a Gaussian Distribution. Its exact shape will be determined after we research how many players are in "declining age" (e.g. older than 29) and how many are in "developing age" (e.g. younger than 27 yo). This "research" can be done by the game once a year, it doesn't have to be done every 6 months.

Not every player will have the same chance to improve or decline every 6 months. It will be a factor of his age, personality, state of life (is he in a reputed club, in a reputed league, with good training facilities and good coaches? Is he happy?), games played, average rating, training regime and of course a random number that describes the randomness of this beautiful and chaotic thing we call life.

So, a young player in a highly reputed club in a highly reputed league with great facilities and coaches, with a good personality, will have a better chance to develop.

Then, after PA2 is calculated, a Maximum Development Pace (MDP) factor is calculated, which describes how much the player can improve every week, so that he reaches his PA2 within 6 months. MDP will be affected by happiness, games played, average rating, training and average condition, so not all players will be reaching their PA2.

This process reapeats again every 6 months, with a new PA2 and MDP calculated for each player. So we have no way of knowing where a player will end up after a couple of years, and everybody gets his chance. As real life also is.

Hopefully, what I have written makes sense.

By sticking a PA, we immediately place a ceiling upon which a player's development is limited, without knowing whether this limit is false or not.

I believe players write their own history and the best players are here through a combination of luck, talent and hard work, rather than a pre-defined number. If Messi had, say, Ben Arfa's attitude, he would not have been one of the best players in the world today. But if we had known he'd be capable of his heights today, would he still be PA 197 (or whatever it is)? No, because the researchers would have dropped it.

I don't think there's much of a point. When we talk about potential, we refer to a player's current ability with respect to age and personality. If Player X is a promising midfielder, he'll have good passing, technique, creativity, and so on. If Player Y is a good midfielder, he'll have good passing, technique, creativity, and so on. The only true difference is that X would likely be a young player.

The ceilings create problems for games because in real life, if a player starts playing really well, the researchers bump up their CA/PA/reputation or a combination of the three. However, when you start the game, there's no "re-rating". A striker who is 140/140 at a mid-table team but gets ratings of 10 each game by scoring a hat-trick every game in the Premiership will be stuck at that level - but if you had a striker who could score a hat-trick every game in real-life, would he be at this mid-table team or off to a big club?

So yes, to me, players write their own history, and I think this is why PA is unrealistic.

It's got some flaws, how many players have come through on FM with PA's of 180+ only never to amount to anything, and how many have been completely unnoticed only then to become either a great prospect the next season or rated a world class player. If a player is at man utd, liverpool, chelsea, inter milan, barcelona, etc usually they seem to get higher PA's just because of the club they're at to start the game, even though very few of these players will turn out to be at the level their PA's suggest they could/should be. How many Man Utd players of the Luke Chadwick era made it as first teamers at man utd? As for the likes of Henri Lansbury, he has a fairly high PA but I doubt the Arsenal researcher knows how serious he will take training etc to give him that as his upper limit.

By sticking a PA, we immediately place a ceiling upon which a player's development is limited, without knowing whether this limit is false or not.

I believe players write their own history and the best players are here through a combination of luck, talent and hard work, rather than a pre-defined number. If Messi had, say, Ben Arfa's attitude, he would not have been one of the best players in the world today. But if we had known he'd be capable of his heights today, would he still be PA 197 (or whatever it is)? No, because the researchers would have dropped it.

I don't think there's much of a point. When we talk about potential, we refer to a player's current ability with respect to age and personality. If Player X is a promising midfielder, he'll have good passing, technique, creativity, and so on. If Player Y is a good midfielder, he'll have good passing, technique, creativity, and so on. The only true difference is that X would likely be a young player.

The ceilings create problems for games because in real life, if a player starts playing really well, the researchers bump up their CA/PA/reputation or a combination of the three. However, when you start the game, there's no "re-rating". A striker who is 140/140 at a mid-table team but gets ratings of 10 each game by scoring a hat-trick every game in the Premiership will be stuck at that level - but if you had a striker who could score a hat-trick every game in real-life, would he be at this mid-table team or off to a big club?

So yes, to me, players write their own history, and I think this is why PA is unrealistic.

The problem isnt the PA system, the problem is

1) Researchers obviously dont know a players PA IRL

2) In game scouts use a players PA to determine their potential, as opposed to using what real life scouts use, their CA/Age etc

Like it or not, every player has an upper limit and some players hit their peak early and barely improve after that

How many players have been tipped for future stardom but never made it? As a Villa fan players like Steven Davis, Lee Hendrie and Luke Moore looked like being the next big things. Hendrie had a high potential but never reached it due to personal problems. Steven Davis was hard working and proffesional, he just never had as much potential as we thought. He his his peak early and never developed from there. When he broke into our team a lot of Villa fans were saying he would be the key player in our team for years to come, and we should build our team around him, his potential in FM would have been lowish, and he would have reached that by about 20 and simply stopped progressing from there. Bear in mind he was a regular player in the Prem and at a club with really good facilities, and also playing fairly well (one of our best players). Why should there be an option in the game for his "potential" to suddenly increase? He never had that potential, and if you dont have the potential you will never be world class, regardless of the training or anything else.

Compare Luke Moore and Gabby Agbonlahor. 3 years ago Moore was twice the player of Gabby. All Gabby could do was run in a straight line. He had no ball control, no vision, was poor at shooting, couldnt pass or cross. Moore could do all those things. They were both at the same club with the same facilities and playing just as often as each other, at a similar age. Moore was probably playing better than Gabby was too. If there was no in game PA, then Moore would still be a better player than Gabby, still be at Villa and Gabby would probably have been offloaded to a League 1 team.

PA IS realistic. You can look at an old FM and see Drogbas PA being low and think of that as proof that the system is wrong, but thats because IRL theres no way to know how a player will develop, so we can only guess. The game doesn't guess. If a regen comes through theres no researcher saying "I think his PA is 100" and getting it wrong. The game is working to their actual PA, the highest level they will reach. There is a ceiling, not everyone has the potential to be world class and some people hit a peak early and never improve from there, in fact that happens more often than a player consistently improving to a high level.

The only things wrong with the system is its impossible for us to tell, so researchers are likely to get the number wrong, and unfortunately I dont think giving every current player 200PA is the answer, that will only make things worse, and scouts are too accurate. Like you say if someone has the exact same stats across the board, is the same age, same stature then there is absolutely no way that anyone would be able to say one has more potential than the other. Thats the main flaw in the game. Noone not us not the AI manager not scouts and not coaches should ever be able to see a players PA. That number should never be used to calculate anything, because noone has acces to that IRL. I want my scout to come to me and get me to sign a Francis Jeffers because I think he'll turn out class. I dont want a production line of superstars because apart from being unrealistic it makes the game a bit more boring

In Tim Park's book 'A Season with Verona' he mentions a conversation he had with a guy who'd once scouted Luca Toni when he was 15 or so, and mentioned that he'd been too young to fully control his body, being lanky, etc.

For most of us, and I include the researchers in this, we're only human - we've no idea how to gauge PA.

Take Roy Keane - technically's he's a proficient player. What gave him the edge was his mental strength. No-one who saw him playing for Cobh Ramblers would have known with absolute certainty that he was going to be one of the best defensive midfielders of all time.

PA might be flawed, but there's no need to scrap it. As a system, it does indeed work. One thing that's harder to convey is that sometimes PA is right, but worse players end up being more effective - if Cristiano Ronaldo was not as fast as he is, he'd still have enormous talent, but someone faster and a lot less talented could end up being more effective.

Because those researching for the game can only judge by what they see in front of them, PA can be flawed. They're usually quite accurate though. And one thing I find fascinating is seeing who had huge PA in old games, and never seemed to make it. And obviously vice versa. I think it was 06 or 05, but I remember a save I had as Barcelona where I had this **** Argentinian reserve called Lionel Messi - whose PA left him with fairly mediocre stats. We can't ever really be certain.

How many times do we see U17 stars flame out?

Having taught football to youngsters, certain kids have basic physical and mental strengths that make them unique talents. You will show one kid a certain drill and he will pick it up immediately and make it a part of his game with ease. Others no matter how hard they try or how well they are instructed never really catch on.

well i think it should exist in some form, but not if researchers/SI are going to keep fiddling with players PA's every patch, ie players like Fabregas going down in PA just because he and his team are not in the best form and he is/was being forced to play in a manner that does not allow him to be play at his best? A slight reduction in CA maybe i can understand, but is there really any validity in saying that all of a sudden Fabs isn't going to be as good as everyone thought just because of a bad patch (and also considering that his 'bad patch' would still be better than 95% of the midfielders at top level?). What i am getting at is the assessment of a players PA needs to be based on a whole range of factors to be as close to real life accuracy as possible.

I haven't read the whole post so don't know if its been suggested, but perhaps the best thing to do is to put all players under say 30 on random PA's, but have more levels than what there currently is. As it stands anyone in the -10 category will be 'world class' but there is still a big difference between a 180 PA and a 199, and the same (and perhaps even moreso) for a -9 and so on.

I think 'hidden' stats such as consistency and 'big matches' should also be made more dynamic, as these also make a significant difference to the overall quality of players (by the way, are these hidden stats fixed or do they develop with the players CA?)

I think 'hidden' stats such as consistency and 'big matches' should also be made more dynamic, as these also make a significant difference to the overall quality of players (by the way, are these hidden stats fixed or do they develop with the players CA?)

Consistency develops, that's why it's really important to give youth first team play by loaning them out (that's the way to improve it).

Last time I checked (FM08), Important Matches was fixed.

As a Villa fan players like Steven Davis, Lee Hendrie and Luke Moore looked like being the next big things... Steven Davis was hard working and professional, he just never had as much potential as we thought. He his his peak early and never developed from there. When he broke into our team a lot of Villa fans were saying he would be the key player in our team for years to come, and we should build our team around him, his potential in FM would have been lowish, and he would have reached that by about 20 and simply stopped progressing from there. Bear in mind he was a regular player in the Prem and at a club with really good facilities, and also playing fairly well (one of our best players). Why should there be an option in the game for his "potential" to suddenly increase? He never had that potential, and if you dont have the potential you will never be world class, regardless of the training or anything else.

That is exactly my point it is not a case of having potential and developing it football is mostly about ability and confidence and consistency ultimately being important to a players performances.

You use Steven Davis but when was the last time you saw Steven Davis play, I know you say he just didn't have the potential but is that all that stopped him from playing well? Having watched him regularly playing for Rangers I can tell you for a fact he will not be there for very long given his performances(even Celtic fans will tell you how good a player he looks) albeit he is being played out of position.

There is no defining factor in hitting or going as far with the CA or ability a player has to place a roof on it is wrong. Maybe in SI they have got lazy and just left it as it works pretty well and they don't really want to develop that part of the game. But there are millions of other factors which determine how far a player will go not just it should not just be one limited number in the game.

PA is needed: you can be the world's best 15 yr old, but have already peaked. Otherwise there'd be no way to differentiate between talented youngsters who are playing as well as the can, and talented youngsters who can be world beaters.

It should. Everyone has a limit in reality which is unknown to everyone and likewise in the game. It is unknown unless you use an editor or scouting tool to look it up and that is the way it should be.

It should. Everyone has a limit in reality which is unknown to everyone and likewise in the game. It is unknown unless you use an editor or scouting tool to look it up and that is the way it should be.

Do they have a limit in real life?

If two players were equal in ability, age and personality, and both play equally well throughout a single season, but one had a lower "limit", would this be fair?

If both average 9.50 over a season, but the lesser one has a lower "limit", would it be fair to say that only one can go further?

Do they have a limit in real life?

If two players were equal in ability, age and personality, and both play equally well throughout a single season, but one had a lower "limit", would this be fair?

If both average 9.50 over a season, but the lesser one has a lower "limit", would it be fair to say that only one can go further?

The limit refers to ability. Everyone has potential at everything not just football. There is always a limit to how good anyone can get no matter what they do. I think you are misunderstanding me. If both average 9.50 over a season they most like have a very high limit. Any player in real life currently has a limit to how good they can become no matter what they do.

I think PA should stay, and still be input by researchers. However, on game generation there should be a random factor. So if a player has CA 100 PA 150 in the database then at the start of a new game it should assign a PA of anywhere between 100 and 175, but weighted so that it averages 150.

Note: 175 is a number I picked out of thin air - there should be a formula to work out the max - with the min being CA. I don't know what this formula should be, but the further PA is from CA the greater the spread of possible values.