Silly Potential Ability!

[AB-forever]

Myth that many (including myself) long believed.

Has it officially been debunked or is it just that you have never seen it happen?

[Kriss]

Has it officially been debunked or is it just that you have never seen it happen?

It's kind of true in that a serious injury can reduce the CA they eventually achieve.

That is reducing their PA in reality, though it won't change in the game.

I'm not even going to read that back to see if it makes sense:D

[Jops14]

A little more off topic. I read earlier someone stated that the most key years of development are between the ages of 8 and 13. And i believe this to actually be true. I remember reading somewhere (possibly on Ajax's website, or a quote from a manager). That once a player is over 16, they believe you can only ever improve them by 20% of that ability, and so if you aren't showing sings of being good enough at that age you may never be. There is evidance against it, but i kinda agree.

Also on FM i find you never seem to see players having late spikes in their development. Closest example i have is a regen who was 17 when he joined my team, supposedly had 3* potential to make him a leading cb. By the time he was 21 this was down to 2* with the potential to be "decent" and his CA was still 1*. 5 years later i found him and he had 3* ability, signed him for madrid and this turned into 5*. So there is the odd rare occasion of late development but still...

[x42bn6]

Thats not exceeding their potential though!

Simply put whoever is judging them has underestimated their potential - It hasn't changed, their potential is the same as it always was.

Nobody judges a regen's PA.

[Cougar2010]

Nobody judges a regen's PA.

:confused:

What are your scouts doing then?

Why do you look to buy young players?

Its one of the key things FM users look at in the game.

[samdiatmh]

^ i look at stats mainly... and then get a scout report if they've got good stats

although i keep a scout permanently in south america to keep looking at the bad stat high PA players

[Johnjo]

A little more off topic. I read earlier someone stated that the most key years of development are between the ages of 8 and 13. And i believe this to actually be true. I remember reading somewhere (possibly on Ajax's website, or a quote from a manager). That once a player is over 16, they believe you can only ever improve them by 20% of that ability, and so if you aren't showing sings of being good enough at that age you may never be. There is evidance against it, but i kinda agree.

Also on FM i find you never seem to see players having late spikes in their development. Closest example i have is a regen who was 17 when he joined my team, supposedly had 3* potential to make him a leading cb. By the time he was 21 this was down to 2* with the potential to be "decent" and his CA was still 1*. 5 years later i found him and he had 3* ability, signed him for madrid and this turned into 5*. So there is the odd rare occasion of late development but still...

John Terry used to be a midfielder as a youth at west ham and keven philips was a right back at southampton before being released then slowly working his way back up to the top level before banging in 30 goals a season for sunderland for a couple of seasons, Didier Drogba also took a while to get where he is. Ime sure there ar many other examples even the brazilian ronaldo wasn't playing profesionaly at a young age.

[cyclonus1010]

Aaron Ramsey can turn into a quality player in game.

again, the point he is making that ramsey can be anywhere from 150 - 179

179 is world class, 150 is squad player at biggest clubs in world

[Matt123456]

I agree with this. I've always thought that every -9 should have a PA of 179, but whether they reach that PA should be dependent on whether they've been given first team experience, the right training regime etc. Because there is a big difference between a -9 player being given a 151 PA or a 179 PA. The 151 PA player will be a squad player at a top side but the 179 PA player would be a world beater.

[x42bn6]

:confused:

What are your scouts doing then?

Why do you look to buy young players?

Its one of the key things FM users look at in the game.

The PA can't be "judged" by someone at the start, not a scout.

The scout maybe did underestimate him but then again if a striker gets 20+ goals consistently then I'd say the scout is wrong to say he's poor.

But unfortunately his PA is what stops him from being rated further. If a striker is that consistent in real-life it's possible they can get even better - not in-game.

[SCIAG]

again, the point he is making that ramsey can be anywhere from 150 - 179

179 is world class, 150 is squad player at biggest clubs in world

Isn't that realistic? Ramsey could, in theory, never reach the heights Fabregas has. 150 is still a quality player.

It's kind of true in that a serious injury can reduce the CA they eventually achieve.

That is reducing their PA in reality, though it won't change in the game.

I'm not even going to read that back to see if it makes sense:D

This.

Has it officially been debunked or is it just that you have never seen it happen?

Officially debunked- PA can never actually change, though a practical maximum CA could.

But SCIAG, you are not in the game as a 16-year-old regen who has had football training at professional (or at least semi-professional) clubs seeking to win your first contract.

This is a good point, and the main flaw of the CA/PA system.

Why doesn't the game project "graphs of improvement"? For example, ideally a player with CA 115, 160 PA, age 16, will reach 140 CA by the time he's 18, 145 by age 19, 150 by 20, and 160 by 24. When a player does not receive ideal treatment (whatever that may be), he moves down a peg, but there's still no reason why he can't reach 160 CA, he's just been temporarily knocked back.

[theboydonegood]

Secondly, in real life, the development a player gets (in footballing terms) has no bearing whatsoever on his potential. You can only ever get a player as good as that player is inherently capable of being. The idea this figure should then change is, quite clearly, ludicrous. Otherwise, any player being taken to a better club effectively gets an automatic PA jump!

I see you have solved the whole nature/nurture debate in one paragraph

[Cougar2010]

Why doesn't the game project "graphs of improvement"? For example, ideally a player with CA 115, 160 PA, age 16, will reach 140 CA by the time he's 18, 145 by age 19, 150 by 20, and 160 by 24. When a player does not receive ideal treatment (whatever that may be), he moves down a peg, but there's still no reason why he can't reach 160 CA, he's just been temporarily knocked back.

I'm sure I read something from Miles before FM10 was released that there were changes to the development curve this season.

Some players would bloom early while some would be restricted and be "late bloomers"

Can't say I've noticed anything yet but I would say I've seen more changes in scout's *s for PA as a player ages than previous versions although that could be more variation put into scouting abilities.

[cyclonus1010]

Isn't that realistic? Ramsey could, in theory, never reach the heights Fabregas has. 150 is still a quality player.

see how many titles u will win with players of 150 pa/ca quality

[x42bn6]

see how many titles u will win with players of 150 pa/ca quality

The following players have CA 145-155 in the 10.2 database (spoilers obviously):

Manchester United: Anderson, Nani, Park, Owen, Giggs, Evans, Foster, Valencia

Chelsea: Belletti, Bosingwa, Kalou, Ferreira, Ivanovic

Barcelona: Maxwell, Busquets, Milito, Chygrynskyi

Real Madrid: Guti, Garay, Gago, Metzelder, Mahamadou Diarra, Arbeloa, Granero, Marcelo

Inter: Materazzi, Quaresma, Muntari, Vieira, Cordoba, Mancini, Balotelli, Santon

Lyon: Michel Bastos, Makoun, Gomis, Reveillere, Boumsong

If anything, CA 150 is a really good CA value to have.

[cyclonus1010]

The following players have CA 145-155 in the 10.2 database

If anything, CA 150 is a really good CA value to have.

yes but these players are supplemented by players such as lampard, drogba, vidic, ferdinand, messi, henry, lucio, eto'o, ronaldo, kaka and lloris.

my argument is u wont win any titles in italy. spain or england(maybe france and germany) with players of 150 ca/pa throughout the side.

[looknohands]

My issue with PA:

The idea of a "cap" on PA, though accurate in real life, doesn't work in the game. Simply go back to previous versions of FM and compare players over the years; chances are, their PA values have changed.

Or how about this example- say a Premier team signs an unknown player that SI has rated with a PA of 140. Said player then goes on to score 40 goals during the season and is named Player of the Year. What happens next? I can guarantee you that his PA would be boosted significantly for the next update in real life, but in the game? Still 140. My solution to this would be a PA that is flexible, in that once a player reaches his initial PA but continues to play well at higher and higher levels, his PA should be increased by 5-10 points a year until his performance no longer lives up to his PA. In this way, PA would be a two-way street; we already know that there are numerous factors that can prevent a player from reaching his PA in the game, but there should also be a method for players to exceed their estimated PA, considering life is full of players that somehow "emerge" as stars despite little being expected of them.

A possible solution to this would be replacing a "hard" PA for an "estimated" one at the beginning of the game, one that can change based on performance over the player's career.

[SCIAG]

So? You want Ramsey to win you titles single handedly, guaranteed?

Incidentally, I've won titles where no player had higher than 160 CA, and he left in January.

[x42bn6]

yes but these players are supplemented by players such as lampard, drogba, vidic, ferdinand, messi, henry, lucio, eto'o, ronaldo, kaka and lloris.

my argument is u wont win any titles in italy. spain or england(maybe france and germany) with players of 150 ca/pa throughout the side.

Eh? SCIAG didn't mention that the whole team is made up of CA 150 players. Still, the players I've listed play significant parts in the teams they are in. Just for Real Madrid this season,

Guti has made 14 appearances, Garay 14, Gago 7, Metzelder 1, Diarra 11 (and through injury), Arbeloa 23, Granero 23 and Marcelo 28. All squad players and Metzelder and Gago aside, they play important parts in the squad.

Of course to win trophies it's best to supplant these players with world-class ones but no team, not even Real Madrid, can field a team where all 11 starters are world-class.

[Guest]

Don't look at the CA/PA.

[Cougar2010]

My issue with PA:

The idea of a "cap" on PA, though accurate in real life, doesn't work in the game. Simply go back to previous versions of FM and compare players over the years; chances are, their PA values have changed.

Or how about this example- say a Premier team signs an unknown player that SI has rated with a PA of 140. Said player then goes on to score 40 goals during the season and is named Player of the Year. What happens next? I can guarantee you that his PA would be boosted significantly for the next update in real life, but in the game? Still 140. My solution to this would be a PA that is flexible, in that once a player reaches his initial PA but continues to play well at higher and higher levels, his PA should be increased by 5-10 points a year until his performance no longer lives up to his PA. In this way, PA would be a two-way street; we already know that there are numerous factors that can prevent a player from reaching his PA in the game, but there should also be a method for players to exceed their estimated PA, considering life is full of players that somehow "emerge" as stars despite little being expected of them.

A possible solution to this would be replacing a "hard" PA for an "estimated" one at the beginning of the game, one that can change based on performance over the player's career.

His PA hasn't altered, all that has happened is that SI/researchers have underestimated it as the scouts do within the game.

[cyclonus1010]

His PA hasn't altered, all that has happened is that SI/researchers have underestimated it as the scouts do within the game.

or overestimate it in some cases, before liverpool signed lucas from gremio, he won player of the year in brazil, he got bumped upto a ridiculous 184 pa!! now i think even his 162 pa is too generous

but the biggest one i have seen to date, looking at his stats now is fabio aurelio.

fm 2006 i think it was, maybe 2005,my god, when he was at valencia, he had 20 finishing 19 dribbling, 18 passing, 16 tackling, 20 freekicks, 17 off the ball, the list went on.

he was the best left back/midfielder in the game.he was a god-like player

low and behold when he signed for a team in england, he was "re-assessed".

his pa went from 175 to 170(not much of a drop) but all his attributes went and rightly so. his current stats are pretty much bang on.

why such a discrepancy between the player in real life and his over-inflated stats?

granted, football is about opinions but some are made looking thro tinted glasses im afraid.

[mitjabarbic]

i have a player who isnt that good, his PA (he reached it at 20) was around 150 but he was a wonderkid..i gave him a chance, developed him well and despite knowing he will never be new beckenbauer he became englands international even winning world best defender. PA isnt really that important..its more important how you reproduce it to important attributes

[looknohands]

His PA hasn't altered, all that has happened is that SI/researchers have underestimated it as the scouts do within the game.

The problem, though, is that this can't be reflected in the game; there's no way for a player to prove himself "better" than what was expected of him. In real life, we can say "Oh, he had that talent all along...we just didn't realize it." In the game, however, it's more along the lines of "This is as good as you'll ever be, no matter how well you play." It's that part that I feel needs to be addressed. My system would go like this:

1. Player is assigned an "expected PA" at the start of the game, using the negative number scale. A player with a -7 would likely start out in the second/lower tier leagues around the world, where he wouldn't receive the same level of coaching/training as a player with a -9. A -9 player would be sought after by the biggest teams, and would likely receive better coaching/training.

2. In theory, the -9 player should have a better chance at surpassing the PA of the -7 player, due to better coaching/training/competition.

3. However -and this is the important part- if the -7 player proves himself to be proficient at the lower leagues he should be able to make the next jump up to a higher league. In the game, it doesn't matter how well a player with a CA/PA of 110 performs in the Championship; there's no way a Premier League squad is going to bring him in.

4. In this system, once a player approaches his "expected PA" (if he's lucky enough to reach it through normal development) the game would then begin to weigh his performance against his PA. If the player continues to excell at the game in a league even with/above his PA level, his PA should be increased slightly to reflect the player's continued progression.

Realistically, I don't expect -7 players to ever reach a PA of 200 under this system...but if a player with an initial PA of 130 is able to work his way up to a 150 or so and compete in the top leagues I believe that'd add a bit more realism to the game. I'm not saying this needs to happen frequently, even...but it should certainly be included. If it's possible for a player to be overrated by the researchers, why can't players have a chance at being underrated?

[eddownland]

i think there is a problem with ca/pa and thats the fact that every year the stats of a few players need radically changing and thats not right. for example chris smalling on fm 10 and fm 09 is a nothing player yet on fm 11 i bet he will be one of the best potential players on it, and if fm was around ten years ago i bet someone like jimmy bullard who was playing non league football would have a little chance of playing prem football but now he's the man!!!!! im not blaming researchers or really any1 at SI for this problem but you cannot deny that this is a problem that shows the game cannot reflect real life in its entirety.i know this sounds like im being too picky and i may be, but i feel that this is one thing that would make the game complete. there must be some way to give more players who start on the game a chance to be better without going to far and have every average joe with -9 ability on a just incase basis. looking at some comments the floating PA sounds not half bad. and ive got to agree x42 bn6's point about ability is in the eye of the beholder and different managers will look at the same player differently as some managers look more at mental and physical abilities like big sam and people like wenger look soley at technical ability. maybe players potential ability should be split into the 3 parts (mental physical and technical) rather than a whole. this would then mean that it depends on how a manager uses them and not entirely their ca and pa.

[mista T]

I use Genie Scout. I don't consider it to be cheating. In real life, you are going to have much more in-depth reports than "oh yeah, he can get roughly this good". It isn't necessarily PA that matters, anyway, but Potential Positional rating. I.E Alphonse Aréola has a high PA, but his Potential Positional rating is low. Thus, a player with say 146 PA but 82% potential positional rating will become better.

[Scoham]

i think there is a problem with ca/pa and thats the fact that every year the stats of a few players need radically changing and thats not right. for example chris smalling on fm 10 and fm 09 is a nothing player yet on fm 11 i bet he will be one of the best potential players on it, and if fm was around ten years ago i bet someone like jimmy bullard who was playing non league football would have a little chance of playing prem football but now he's the man!!!!! im not blaming researchers or really any1 at SI for this problem but you cannot deny that this is a problem that shows the game cannot reflect real life in its entirety.i know this sounds like im being too picky and i may be, but i feel that this is one thing that would make the game complete. there must be some way to give more players who start on the game a chance to be better without going to far and have every average joe with -9 ability on a just incase basis. looking at some comments the floating PA sounds not half bad. and ive got to agree x42 bn6's point about ability is in the eye of the beholder and different managers will look at the same player differently as some managers look more at mental and physical abilities like big sam and people like wenger look soley at technical ability. maybe players potential ability should be split into the 3 parts (mental physical and technical) rather than a whole. this would then mean that it depends on how a manager uses them and not entirely their ca and pa.

So basically you're asking that the researchers see the future, so they only have to make minor changes? It's just not possible. Professional managers and scouts mis-judge players, never mind researchers for FM.

There are plenty of players that have and are accurately rated, they just go unnoticed. Mistakes will be made, but it doesn't really matter and I don't see a good way around it. There are already minus potentials for young players, and the research is improving with every version.

[Brian Shanahan]

but the biggest one i have seen to date, looking at his stats now is fabio aurelio.

fm 2006 i think it was, maybe 2005,my god, when he was at valencia, he had 20 finishing 19 dribbling, 18 passing, 16 tackling, 20 freekicks, 17 off the ball, the list went on.

he was the best left back/midfielder in the game.he was a god-like player

low and behold when he signed for a team in england, he was "re-assessed".

his pa went from 175 to 170(not much of a drop) but all his attributes went and rightly so. his current stats are pretty much bang on.

why such a discrepancy between the player in real life and his over-inflated stats?

granted, football is about opinions but some are made looking thro tinted glasses im afraid.

I think I can explain this one, at Valencia he was one of the main players in the team which challenged the dominance of the big two (thus justifying his stats), but then in 2003-2004 he suffered a broken leg leaving him out for a whole season, actually reducing his quality as a player, and making him more injury prone, so he lost some of his abilities and never has been able to train or play for long enough to re-learn them or even improve without getting injured again. It wouldn't be the first time a top player was impeded due to a major injury.

[Baktru]

Because their potential ability is not down to how we develop them, its just absolutly random! Which i think shouldn't be the case.

Funny enough, i do actually regret looking at the FMRTE.

Funny. I think that is exactly what PA should be like. If I got trained from a young age at soccer etc., my PA would still be crap. Some people just have or don't have the talent.

CA should depend heavily on training and surroundings, but PA? Naah.

[Baktru]

The problem, though, is that this can't be reflected in the game; there's no way for a player to prove himself "better" than what was expected of him. In real life, we can say "Oh, he had that talent all along...we just didn't realize it." In the game, however, it's more along the lines of "This is as good as you'll ever be, no matter how well you play." It's that part that I feel needs to be addressed. My system would go like this:

1. Player is assigned an "expected PA" at the start of the game, using the negative number scale. A player with a -7 would likely start out in the second/lower tier leagues around the world, where he wouldn't receive the same level of coaching/training as a player with a -9. A -9 player would be sought after by the biggest teams, and would likely receive better coaching/training.

2. In theory, the -9 player should have a better chance at surpassing the PA of the -7 player, due to better coaching/training/competition.

3. However -and this is the important part- if the -7 player proves himself to be proficient at the lower leagues he should be able to make the next jump up to a higher league. In the game, it doesn't matter how well a player with a CA/PA of 110 performs in the Championship; there's no way a Premier League squad is going to bring him in.

4. In this system, once a player approaches his "expected PA" (if he's lucky enough to reach it through normal development) the game would then begin to weigh his performance against his PA. If the player continues to excell at the game in a league even with/above his PA level, his PA should be increased slightly to reflect the player's continued progression.

Realistically, I don't expect -7 players to ever reach a PA of 200 under this system...but if a player with an initial PA of 130 is able to work his way up to a 150 or so and compete in the top leagues I believe that'd add a bit more realism to the game. I'm not saying this needs to happen frequently, even...but it should certainly be included. If it's possible for a player to be overrated by the researchers, why can't players have a chance at being underrated?

I totally disagree.

The problem is actually very simple... Don't look at the PA. When you get a player that looks promising and then somehow never really makes it? He had a mediocre PA to begin with but had decent CA very early. Now in real life we cannot see this real PA, this born in ability to play good, really good soccer. IRL you can only find out in hindsight.

But the game just 'knows'. Which is fine with me. With the genes and soccer raining I had up to age 14, there is a certain maximum level of soccer that I can never exceed no matter what? Well obviously!

And yes players can be underrated by the researchers of course, and in the game they will never really shine... But chances are, they were underestimated by everyone at that point anyway. IRL, you cannot see the PA. And really... You shouldn't be looking at PA anyway. It's hidden for a reason, precisely because the actual development of a player should be hard to judge, not a fixed number you can just go and look at.

[Dave C]

I see you have solved the whole nature/nurture debate in one paragraph

Thanks, I try to be concise.