It's so annoying that 10.3 requires a CB to be tall

[SFraser]

The original argument (it's right there in the thread title) was more along the lines of 'you have to win a high % of headers to get a good rating'. Which as SFraser says, you can reject the moment you find one DC losing a lot of headers and still getting a good rating.

That is exactly correct. I have shown that you can achieve high ratings with low header win%, and low ratings with high header win%. The statement that you must have a high header win% to get high ratings is false.

It is like saying you must own the game to use these forums. There will no doubt be a high correlation between owners of the game and forum users but the moment I find someone using this forum that does not own the game, the claim is false.

So while there may be a valid question mark over the importance of header win%, or relative jumping abilities, this thread is currently bogged down in far too much hyperbole and willful lack of accuracy to possibly be of any use in actually discussing or investigating the issue in any relevant depth. As soon as issues that may actually matter are brought up for discussion there is a vast knee jerk response, and so even if there was a bug in the ratings it would not be possible to show that it exists, and so we would all have rely upon someone from SI reading this thread and not dismissing it immediately out of hand as nonesense.

The point made in the OP is false, provably so. So long as this proof is ignored or argued then the thread is not a discussion of a bug, but denial of proven fact, and is therefore of no use to anyone. Once the proof of refutation of an inaccurate claim is accepted, we can then move on to discuss and debate other issues that may be accurate and may require attention. Issues such as the possibility that header win % is too heavilly biased in match ratings.

Player ratings are automatically higher for victories, and Johnny Evans' jumping attribute of 16, is more than good enough for the highest level of football. The results shown with his Man Utd side and its lopsided formation prove absolutely nothing at all about the point he is trying to make about the ME. Winning 5-0 against wolfsburg at home, and then claiming his CB's match ratings were excellent is a joke.

The point of this thread is Defenders losing headers and being punished in their ratings. Thus the important thing is to use examples of Defenders having LOWER Jumping than their opponents and LOSING headers, not having some arbitrary Jumping Attribute.

Carles Puyol with a Jumping Attribute of 13 has just recently played as Centreback in the World Cup in my save, in a group with teams that have very low Jumping attribute strikers. Would you like me to pull up screenshots of his 11 headers attempted/11 headers won against some obscure 35 year old Japanese Striker with 8 Jumping generated by the game to fill out the Japanese squad?

No ofcourse not. That would be blatantly false and manipulative use of statistics. Having a similar quality/ability player with higher Jumping and winning most of his Headers is the only fair example of these points. Some arbitrary Jumping Attribute level is meaningless.

This is why this thread is going nowhere:

I say

CB's with less than 13 jumping can't get good ratings.

False, narrowminded, meaningless, irrelevant, shallow claim.

[bleventozturk]

Dude I've been following this thread. Mainly watching and laughing to myself.

Where did I compare him to Terry?

Did you read all my post?

The bit where I said it is pretty much realistic that people that can't jump/head don't make good centrebacks??

Mensah has one flaw, but its a pretty fatal one for a CB. IRL he is bobbins, therefore FM's (or more precisely) the researchers impression of him is pretty good.

The star ratings don't mean squat on the wider scale as they are in comparison to your team and league.

I for one am wholly unsurprised that short/poor jumping (same thing in FM ME) are not good centrebacks, as I would imagine are most people who understand football. I'm sure as Fener you can afford a CB with jumping above 13, so do us all a favour and go buy yourself one and stop perpetuating nonsense.

I'll tell you what is nonsense. Nonsense is not being interested in checking out the proof I'm providing you, from your own games, and continue arguing here.

[bleventozturk]

False, narrowminded, meaningless, irrelevant, shallow claim.

Continue with your insulting comments, but you are the one who is narrowminded. You are accepting everything that you say as 'fact', not even being interested in checking out what I suggested. Go check your own game, see if there is any CB with low jumping performing well, then come back continue with your insults if you think it is fair.

I won't write anything else here bc I don't like to discuss things with narrowminded and aggressive people who don't respect anything else than what is coming out of their head and mouth.

[nev147]

Continue with your insulting comments, but you are the one who is narrowminded. You are accepting everything that you say as 'fact', not even being interested in checking out what I suggested. Go check your own game, see if there is any CB with low jumping performing well, then come back continue with your insults if you think it is fair.

I won't write anything else here bc I don't like to discuss things with narrowminded and aggressive people who don't respect anything else than what is coming out of their head and mouth.

I second this . Putting the debate to one side - it was quite ironic that fraser called someone 'narrowminded'. You make some decent points fraser but your inability to even respect others or acknowledge they are comming from a different view point is very telling. It is a subjective view point and there are no facts- its peoples perception and your behaviour is pretty arrogant.

[lonestar007]

Gonna agree that the quote stated as narrowminded by Fraser is the very definition of narrowminded.

"CB's with less than 13 jumping can't get good ratings."

Don't think Fraser was referring to the whole argument, but when someone makes a blanket statement like that, I too think it is narrowminded.

[edgar555]

I'll tell you what is nonsense. Nonsense is not being interested in checking out the proof I'm providing you, from your own games, and continue arguing here.

WOW! This is akin to banging my head against a brick wall. Just a whole heap less enjoyable.

I hear what you are saying and next time I fire up FM will look at your claim. But if proved right all it tells me is : its football!! Centrebacks for the most part are aerially dominant beings, in FM this is shown by them having good jumping attributes. I for one would not look at a CB with jumping lower than 13 for the simple reason that part of their job is so key.

FM is supposed to replicate football, if tiny centrebacks were running around dominating, these forums would be ablaze with 'unrealistic' chants.

Is this so hard to understand?

[nev147]

Gonna agree that the quote stated as narrowminded by Fraser is the very definition of narrowminded.

"CB's with less than 13 jumping can't get good ratings."

Don't think Fraser was referring to the whole argument, but when someone makes a blanket statement like that, I too think it is narrowminded.

Dont forget there is a difference between narrowminded and a generalisation. The above statement is a generalisation - ofcourse CBs under 13 for jumping can get good ratings but on the whole (yes there are exceptions) the jupling attribute in FM is too dominant and makes a CB with a high jumping attribute like gold dust and the opposite for poor jumping players. We are going around in circles. Agree to disagree - but fraser answer to this will be to say I am right I am the tactical genius amoung us etc and diss people from his pedestal.

[lonestar007]

WOW! This is akin to banging my head against a brick wall. Just a whole heap less enjoyable.

I hear what you are saying and next time I fire up FM will look at your claim. But if proved right all it tells me is : its football!! Centrebacks for the most part are aerially dominant beings, in FM this is shown by them having good jumping attributes. I for one would not look at a CB with jumping lower than 13 for the simple reason that part of their job is so key.

FM is supposed to replicate football, if tiny centrebacks were running around dominating, these forums would be ablaze with 'unrealistic' chants.

Is this so hard to understand?

Next post to come:

"It's so annoying that 10.3 requires a ST to have good finishing"

followed by

"It's so annoying that 10.3 requires a MC to be a good passer"

[edgar555]

Next post to come:

"It's so annoying that 10.3 requires a ST to have good finishing"

followed by

"It's so annoying that 10.3 requires a MC to be a good passer"

Exactly

I note that when the argument was getting away from bleventozturk, he/she has walked away claiming to be upset about aggresiveness. Funny that these threads always end with the person in the wrong running away crying and not being able to man up and say, you know what, I made a mistake, thanks for the discussion.

[pauliowigs]

So what your saying is that centrebacks who are not aerially dominant are not very good?

Sounds pretty much exactly like real life. Apart from one or 2 notable exceptions (Cannavaro being the obvious one) how many poor headers of a ball have ever been up there with the best centrebacks. Worded like you have above it makes perfect sense that what you see is just another example of FM replicating RL.

John Mensah? Hardly a dominant centre back who can cut it at the very top IRL is unsurprisingly poor in the game. You lot just wasted nearly 200 posts on this??

This misses the point. If John Mensah was rubbish in the game then what your saying would be fine, as it happens, John Mensah is a good player in the game, scouts seem to think he has the ability to play in the Prem. If you take over any mid table premier league club and get your best scout to do a scout report on john mensiah then he come up as a "good Premier League Centre". I just took over blackburn at random and tried this. He is recomended as a good signing (scout has 16 JPA) and would be as good as the current best centre back that they have!

If you sign a player like this, he shouldn't play like rubbish, despite him holding a high value in the game, despite him being regarded as a good player in the game, with scouts, coaches and other clubs treating him as if he were a good player.

Its inconsistent. For it to make sense one of two things have to happen. The scout report/coach report and everything else should come back and not reccomend him. Here we are accepting that BECASUE he has low jumping, he must be rubbish. Under this circumstance it would be acceptable for him to perform poorly in the game, becasue all other information the player is supplied with would suggest he will. My issue with this is that we would then be saying that it is impossible to have a reasonable centreback who is not aerially dominant, and this would make jumping by and far the single most important stat when choosing a centreback.

Alternatively, players with a less than ideal jumping stat need to have there ratings improved in the match engine, as they are currently murdered. Slow centrebacks do not always have there ratings murdered this way, centre backs with low tackling do not always have there rating murdered this way. As a footballer you have a range of abilities you may be good at, as a defender jumping is a worthwhile and important attribute, but if you excel in you speed, in your reading of the game, in your tackling and your marking then you should still be able to be an average/good player (like the scout reports suggest) and therefore you should still perform ok.

There are many real life examples of players who perform decent enough in the premiership as a centre back, who are not arielly dominant (they normally have a partner who is areially dominant) The example i gave earlier was Aaron Hughes of Fulham, one of the better defensive teams in the prem. But in FM 10.3 Aaron Hughes, like John Mensah will never perform to the ability that the game is telling you that they have, there average ratings over a season will tend to suck.

[SFraser]

This is starting to get silly. I will post these, but then we seriously need to stop making random, meaningless, childish claims that are the complete opposite of intelligent or reasonable discussion. Cut out the junk please, and atleast try to say something realistic, accurate and with a point behind it.

[edgar555]

Honestly, John Mensah is not a good defender, I don't care what anyones scouts say.

Post #158 sums this thread perfectly and succintly.

[pauliowigs]

Next post to come:

"It's so annoying that 10.3 requires a ST to have good finishing"

followed by

"It's so annoying that 10.3 requires a MC to be a good passer"

*SPOILER ALERT A COUPLE OF RANDOM PLAYER STATS REVEALED*

But thats not true. A jumping of 12, like the example i gave with two players in my mega long post means a defender doesn't perform well over a premiership season, even if he has good other stats in every other area needed.

You can certainly have a striker with a finishing of 12 play well in the prem if he has high other stats. I would quite like a striker with 18 accell, 18 pace, 18 off the ball,18 first touch, 14 strength, 13 jumping, 18 dribbling and 12 finishing. Wouldn't you? Would probably come up as a good prem/leading star player.

If you have a game of FM that is near the begining look up these players

Ivica Olic - The name might sound familiar as he plays for bayern munich, and he scored agasint man utd in real life. He is a striker that has a FINISHING of 12. On a scout report for him he comes up as a leading prem star and i bet you could get goals out of him on FM. He is perhaps ultimate proof that the suggestion that finishing is a prerequiste to being a good striker is incorrect, what with being famous and being good in fm and being able to score and get good match ratings in fm and in real life.....

Alexis Sanchez can play up front as a natural striker, has a FINISHING of 9. He has 17 dribbling and is quick comes up as a good prem striker and i bet you could get goals out of him i'd love him in a mid table prem side!

Chinedu Obasi - acceleration 17, pace 16, off the ball 16 dribbling 16, first touch 17 FINISHING - 9 - Comes up as a good prem player 3 and a half stars, a natural striker - and the scout reports he would be Blackburns best player by a country mile...

Yannick Djalo would also be ok for blackburn according to scout reports (3 Stars, as good as Blackburns best... FINISHING 12

(i've used a save from the first day of the season that is 10.2 data for ease of loading but i bet they're the same in 10.3, if not i'll just have to dig out some from in there)

Even Obefemi Martins only has a finishing of 13 and he used to score roughly 1 in three games in the prem for newcastle. You can get by with strikers with 9 - 13 in finishing if they are exceptional in other areas. You can get ones that will do just fine in the prem for a middle prem side. they will get reasonable average match ratings.

You can't get defenders that perform well in match ratings with a jumping in the range of 10 - 12 though.

No one single stat completly rules out a player from being good in FM in any other position. It is possible to have low passing midfielders that are world class (by low i mean 12 in passing) Likewise it is possible to have excellent strikers with 10-12 finishing.

And lets be honest if passing and finishing are the magic stat you'd expect there to be for midfielders and strikers, tackling would be the equivalent for defenders most likely. Not jumping.

[Katarian]

But thats not true. A jumping of 12, like the example i gave with two players in my mega long post means a defender can't play well in the prem, even if he has good other stats in every other area needed.

Not quite true. The player I was having problems with had lower then I like average rating around 6.3 one season and 6.4 the next, but he often played above 7. He was was just dragged down by 5-6 shocking performances, take those performances out and his average would of been nearer 6.9, which for my team is good for a defender. A few of those performances it was obviously missed interceptions and headers that were the problem (though you have to use the analysis tool to find those stats, which isn't very easy to find or user friendly), but there were a few where I couldn't really work out what was wrong beyond maybe he was hardly involved in the game. I could of course watch the entire matches and work out what the problem is, but I'm not going to. I don't have the time or patience.

The game should make analysis of the match easier for the more casual user, as I'm sure there are far more people like me who want to fly through matches pretty quickly then ones who will watch full matches. It would hopefully also cut down on compliants like this.

[edit]I'd also like to say the setting my RB to be defensive and using my DC/R who is good aerially in that position greatly improved the ratings of my Covering CB (who is good in the air but was rather inconsistant until I supported him with the defensive RB). I wish I had the opportunaity to try it when I still had my "problem" defender, but my DC/R had a serious injury (out for 9 months). Looking back most of the really good performances came when my DC/R was playing with the problem guy.[edit]

[pauliowigs]

Not quite true. The player I was having problems with had lower then I like average rating around 6.3 one season and 6.4 the next, but he often played above 7. He was was just dragged down by 5-6 shocking performances, take those performances out and his average would of been nearer 6.9, which for my team is good for a defender. A few of those performances it was obviously missed interceptions and headers that were the problem (though you have to use the analysis tool to find those stats, which isn't very easy to find or user friendly), but there were a few where I couldn't really work out what was wrong beyond maybe he was hardly involved in the game. I could of course watch the entire matches and work out what the problem is, but I'm not going to. I don't have the time or patience.

The game should make analysis of the match easier for the more casual user, as I'm sure there are far more people like me who want to fly through matches pretty quickly then ones who will watch full matches. It would hopefully also cut down on compliants like this.

[edit]I'd also like to say the setting my RB to be defensive and using my DC/R who is good aerially in that position greatly improved the ratings of my Covering CB (who is good in the air but was rather inconsistant until I supported him with the defensive RB). I wish I had the opportunaity to try it when I still had my "problem" defender, but my DC/R had a serious injury (out for 9 months). Looking back most of the really good performances came when my DC/R was playing with the problem guy.[edit]

I'm sorry, i've got ahead of myself and haven't been clear. I am in agreement with you. My long and first post on here I talked about alex Craig a regen who was one of the "best" centrebacks in the game but had a jumping of 12. Sometimes he'd get 6.7/6.8/6.9 ocassionlly he topped a 7.0. But a lot of the time he just had poor games on 6.4's or major blips. This is similar to my experieance of centre backs with low jumping in all the occasions i've had them, despite coaches telling me that they are excelent players.

When i said that a centreback with low jumping do not do well, i did not mean that they cannot in a game. I mean that compared to other players, and compared to the ability that they are supposed to have they do not do well over the course of a season. The average rating is dissapointing compared to other players, and compared to centrebacks that coaches do not rate so highly but have better jumping.

I think i got ahead of myself a bit becasue i was so shocked at the suggestion that a striker has to have 13+ finishing , irregardless of other stats to perform well in the prem and the same with midfielders and passing. I was in a rush to quell such nonsense .

[bleventozturk]

Exactly

I note that when the argument was getting away from bleventozturk, he/she has walked away claiming to be upset about aggresiveness. Funny that these threads always end with the person in the wrong running away crying and not being able to man up and say, you know what, I made a mistake, thanks for the discussion.

I'm running away bc some people here started getting arrogant and disrespectful. If your understanding from 'being a man' is about putting up with insults, then yes, I'm not man enough. In my opinion, I just don't like debating with disrespectful people, that's all. It has nothing to do with 'not being man enough'. I prefer being a gentleman and not insult others who don't aggree with me. But I don't have to listen to continuous arrogance and aggresive comments. Sorry but like I said I'm not going to stay in this argument any more. It's not worth it.

[SFraser]

I'm sorry, i've got ahead of myself and haven't been clear. I am in agreement with you. My long and first post on here I talked about alex Craig a regen who was one of the "best" centrebacks in the game but had a jumping of 12. Sometimes he'd get 6.7/6.8/6.9 ocassionlly he topped a 7.0. But a lot of the time he just had poor games on 6.4's or major blips. This is similar to my experieance of centre backs with low jumping in all the occasions i've had them, despite coaches telling me that they are excelent players.

When i said that a centreback with low jumping do not do well, i did not mean that they cannot in a game. I mean that compared to other players, and compared to the ability that they are supposed to have they do not do well over the course of a season. The average rating is dissapointing compared to other players, and compared to centrebacks that coaches do not rate so highly but have better jumping.

I think i got ahead of myself a bit becasue i was so shocked at the suggestion that a striker has to have 13+ finishing , irregardless of other stats to perform well in the prem and the same with midfielders and passing. I was in a rush to quell such nonsense .

What about Puyol? He consistently has a higher Average Rating than Vidic in my game and has a Jumping of 13. How do you explain that? That Puyol is not this arbitrary "12" rating you pulled from thin air?

What about those screenshots I posted of players with 12 or lower Jumping having average ratings above 7.0 after 10 first team competitive games?

You cannot go around making these kinds of statements.

[edgar555]

I'm running away bc some people here started getting arrogant and disrespectful. If your understanding from 'being a man' is about putting up with insults, then yes, I'm not man enough. In my opinion, I just don't like debating with disrespectful people, that's all. It has nothing to do with 'not being man enough'. I prefer being a gentleman and not insult others who don't aggree with me. But I don't have to listen to continuous arrogance and aggresive comments. Sorry but like I said I'm not going to stay in this argument any more. It's not worth it.

You started it, you were proved wrong, you ran away. No more to add.

[edgar555]

Actually I do have more to add. I didn't see any aggression. Heated argument maybe, passionate even, but aggressive? No, also I wasn't just talking about you, it was very much a generalisation of GD thread starters who get proved wrong.

[nev147]

I'm running away bc some people here started getting arrogant and disrespectful. If your understanding from 'being a man' is about putting up with insults, then yes, I'm not man enough. In my opinion, I just don't like debating with disrespectful people, that's all. It has nothing to do with 'not being man enough'. I prefer being a gentleman and not insult others who don't aggree with me. But I don't have to listen to continuous arrogance and aggresive comments. Sorry but like I said I'm not going to stay in this argument any more. It's not worth it.

Yeah very true, similar to what I said earlier - and it is not worth wasting your time. It seems that the 'my way or the highway' mentality is in force yet again from various people!

[SCIAG]

This is starting to get silly. I will post these, but then we seriously need to stop making random, meaningless, childish claims that are the complete opposite of intelligent or reasonable discussion. Cut out the junk please, and atleast try to say something realistic, accurate and with a point behind it.

<images snipped>

The first player has played three matches for a lower league German side.

The second has done poorly in youth team matches, and has done well in a single cup game.

Generally, such "evidence" would not be scientifically valid. That leaves two cases, assuming you have loaded these leagues and have them on full detail.

[Katarian]

What about those screenshots I posted of players with 12 or lower Jumping having average ratings above 7.0 after 10 first team competitive games?

As your playing in England are those leagues being simulated in full detail? I don't think you can compare a "Full" detail league to one that is set to "none" or whatever the option is in Detail levels. I only have full detail on the league I am playing in, currently the EPL and the stats for the EPL are vastly different to even the Championship. For example teams on average score 3 times as many corners and free kicks in the EPL compared to the Championship/League One/League Two.

[edgar555]

As your playing in England are those leagues being simulated in full detail? I don't think you can compare a "Full" detail league to one that is set to "none" or whatever the option is in Detail levels. I only have full detail on the league I am playing in, currently the EPL and the stats for the EPL are vastly different to even the Championship. For example teams on average score 3 times as many corners and free kicks in the EPL compared to the Championship/League One/League Two.

Could that not be put down to the difference in ability to some extent? Not arguing either way on this point, just wondering.

[SFraser]

Generally, such "evidence" would not be scientifically valid. That leaves two cases, assuming you have loaded these leagues and have them on full detail.

I don't think any of the claims made in this thread would be "scientifically valid".

As your playing in England are those leagues being simulated in full detail? I don't think you can compare a "Full" detail league to one that is set to "none" or whatever the option is in Detail levels. I only have full detail on the league I am playing in, currently the EPL and the stats for the EPL are vastly different to even the Championship. For example teams on average score 3 times as many corners and free kicks in the EPL compared to the Championship/League One/League Two.

The pattern is exactly the same in Full Detail leagues as non full detail leagues in my save, i.e zero pattern. I am getting a bit tired of producing mountains of evidence to refute every single claim in this thread, and either having people ignore it completely, shift the goalposts again, or claim it is false because it happens to be Jonny Evans against Dzeko.

If you wish I will start hauling out Centrebacks from the Championship, which I have on full detail. I have found plenty there that are rubbish at Jumping and have relatively high average ratings for the standard of football at the club. Though I do not particulary want to post another four screenshots, as it is inevitable that these will also be completely ignored.

I think it is about time those making claims started producing some evidence other than hearsay. There has not been one shred of evidence to support any of the claims made here, and all claims made here have been proven wrong by me with evidence, yet the arguement does not stop.

What is the crack here? Is this what GD is always like?

[SFraser]

From a Full Detail League:

13 games as Centreback, Jumping of 12, Average Rating in 12 Full Detail league games 7.05.

No goals so far this season for the lad, but he managed a MotM from Centreback. Barring his 12 Jumping, this guy looks a touch better than John O'Shea.

[SFraser]

This guy has 13 Jumping, lower Acceleration and Pace but otherwise similar stats.

Average rating after 13 games 6.22. Hopeless player.

We can clearly see from these two screenshots that Jumping has no meaning and infact Acceleration is rediculously overpowered and totally nerfs average ratings for defenders....

[SFraser]

Alex Pearce, brute of a Centreback with a bit of Pace as well. 18 Jumping, 18 Heading, 16 Aggression, 16 Strength.

Average rating of only 6.99? What is going on?

[lonestar007]

So 2 pages of discussion have revealed that it is more difficult to get good ratings with a CB that has low jumping versus one with high jumping.

Keep it coming boys, this might get stickied in the tactics forum.

[SCIAG]

What database are you using, SFraser? If earlier than 10.3, I know exactly what the problem is with Pearce. Begins with B and ends with "rendan Rodgers"

[SFraser]

What database are you using, SFraser? If earlier than 10.3, I know exactly what the problem is with Pearce. Begins with B and ends with "rendan Rodgers"

This guy?

He left Reading 7 months ago according to my game. How is he the problem?

Anyway the player of relevence to this discussion is Luke Chambers.

[SCIAG]

Rodgers is the problem due to chronic awfulness. That was an attempt at a joke.

But yeah, much improved screenshot selection.

[x42bn6]

Rather than "cherry-pick" results which match your view, I've simulated the full season, full detail, Premier League. I've picked out all centre-backs who have played at centre-back in the league 5 or more than times. I understand the ratings will be wrong because it also accounts for Cup games but considering only 7 teams are in Europe I hope this doesn't make too much of a difference.

Player	Jumping	Rating
Jonny Evans	17	6.78
Rio Ferdinand	16	6.83
Nemanja Vidic	18	7.3
Alex	17	7.13
Ricardo Carvalho	16	7.1
John Terry	16	7.15
Jamie Carragher	16	7.24
Daniel Agger	14	7.08
Sotiris Kyrgiakos	18	7.04
Thomas Vermaelen	14	6.88
William Gallas	15	6.97
Jonathan Woodgate	16	6.82
Sébastien Bassong	15	7.18
Michael Dawson	17	7.1
Ledley King	16	6.82
James Collins	16	6.81
Curtis Davies	15	6.83
Richard Dunne	16	6.97
Kolo Touré	14	6.94
Joleon Lescott	16	6.82
Vincent Kompany	16	6.75
Sylvain Distin	17	6.94
Philippe Senderos	18	6.96
Joseph Yobo	17	7.11
Daniel Gabbidon	12	6.55
James Tomkins	14	6.67
Matthew Upson	16	7.02
Gary Cahill	14	6.75
Zat Knight	19	7.04
Andy O'Brien	14	6.51
Chris Basham	13	6.69
Scott Dann	13	6.52
Roger Johnson	17	7.03
Aleksandar Tunchev	14	6.66
Robert Huth	17	6.7
Ryan Shawcross	16	6.91
Abdoulaye Faye	17	7
Ryan Nelsen	15	6.63
Tomas Repka	17	6.78
Christopher Samba	20	7.22
Michael Mancienne	14	6.63
Christophe Berra	14	6.73
Jody Craddock	15	6.57
Aaron Hughes	12	6.71
Brede Hangeland	18	7.1
Chris Smalling	17	6.73
Chris Baird	14	6.76
Antonio Amaya	17	6.76
Titus Bramble	16	6.88
Gary Caldwell	15	6.66
Paul da Silva	11	6.52
Anton Ferdinand	14	6.62
John Mensah	10	6.05
Michael Turner	17	6.76
Anthony Gardner	17	6.81
Steven Mouyokolo	15	6.92
Ibrahima Sonko	17	6.72
Ricardo Rocha	12	6.48
Aaron Mokoena	15	6.65
Tal Ben-Haim	15	6.85
Stephen Caldwell	13	6.19
Clarke Carlisle	15	6.42
Leon Cort	13	6.54
André Bikey	17	6.77
David Edgar	15	6.7
Correlation		0.69

A correlation of 0.69 is very, very strong indeed - perhaps too strong.

ODS: http://rapidshare.com/files/379397962/Headers_2.ods

CSV: http://rapidshare.com/files/379398065/Headers_2.csv

Currently uploading the save if anyone wants to check or do more analysis.

Save: http://rapidshare.com/files/379401442/Headers.fm (~34 Mb)

[SFraser]

Now you have finished your fools errand, have a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

My personal favourite is this one:

The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is going to be.

Therefore firemen cause fire.

[x42bn6]

Now you have finished your fools errand, have a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

My personal favourite is this one:

Yes and of course by pointing out certain screenshots of your own you are also implying a correlation - just a negative one.

It simply suggests that there is indeed a strong correlation between Jumping and Rating - of which more discussion is required to generate a causal relationship.

You're suggesting you don't need tall Jumping to get good Ratings - I'm suggesting the data simply doesn't support it. You're cherry-picking.

[SFraser]

You're suggesting you don't need tall Jumping to get good Ratings - I'm suggesting the data simply doesn't support it. You're cherry-picking.

I'm not suggesting anything. I am providing evidence that refutes that claim.

You are providing coincidental data that has no meaning other than there is correlation. I have provided factual evidence that low Jumping Centrebacks can get high Ratings, and even MotM awards.

It doesn't matter if it happens once in a million games or every game, the claim is refuted.

If I beat you with a stick, your claim that there are no sticks is refuted, no matter if you deny the evidence or not.

[x42bn6]

I'm not suggesting anything. I am providing evidence that refutes that claim.

You are providing coincidental data that has no meaning other than there is correlation. I have provided factual evidence that low Jumping Centrebacks can get high Ratings, and even MotM awards.

It doesn't matter if it happens once in a million games or every game, the claim is refuted.

If I beat you with a stick, you can no longer deny sticks exist.

And I'm saying they're outliers.

Pointing out these sorts of things is a bit like pointing out one experiment which failed out of 100. Maybe... It's this one experiment that is wrong, not the other 99?

Since they aren't perfectly correlated there will always exist some result which bucks the trend - so there is no need to point out these results in general, unless there is something systematically wrong or you've found some interesting situations where the trend does not hold.

I just see outliers.

[x42bn6]

And as an aside I'm sure the OP isn't suggesting a pure strict rule such that one counterexample will violate it. As seen by reading the thread:

I think the OP's point is that there's too much weight put on %age of headers won by DCs, when it comes to match ratings.

Yes, yes, thank you

Hence some of the arguments about Puyol at the start of the thread too.

It seems the OP is suggesting that there is too much of a weight given to headers and tall players - and since the game is a black box, all I can do is find correlations. Or perhaps set up controlled experiments.

[SFraser]

They cannot be outliers when they come from the precise test context that your claim comes from in the first place. The data that is refuting your claim is the same data you use to construct your theory in the first place.

And as an aside I'm sure the OP isn't suggesting a pure strict rule such that one counterexample will violate it. As seen by reading the thread:

Hence some of the arguments about Puyol at the start of the thread too.

It seems the OP is suggesting that there is too much of a weight given to headers and tall players - and since the game is a black box, all I can do is find correlations. Or perhaps set up controlled experiments.

Completely different altogether to claiming that low Jumping Centrebacks cannot achieve high ratings.

It wasn't me that took a perfectly valid debate and turned into a train of spurious and patently and provably false claims.

My intention was to get that junk out of the way ASAP so we could debate the points of relevence to the game, but that only seems to have increased the tunnel-vision and hyperbole in this thread.

Which leads us back to you and your little "correlation is not causation yet that's how I am interpreting the data" fallacy.

[x42bn6]

They cannot be outliers when they come from the precise test context that your claim comes from in the first place. The data that is refuting your claim is the same data you use to construct your theory in the first place.

I'm not using data to construct a theory. I'm just gathering data and doing calculations on it.

Completely different altogether to claiming that low Jumping Centrebacks cannot achieve high ratings.

We could of course look at % of Headers won vs. Ratings but I've done part of an experiment up above! And that one is weakly-positively correlated. Yet you throw out the same outliers.

It wasn't me that took a perfectly valid debate and turned into a train of spurious and patently and provably false claims.

Never suggested you did.

My intention was to get that junk out of the way ASAP so we could debate the points of relevence to the game, but that only seems to have increased the tunnel-vision and hyperbole in this thread.

Well I'm sorry you don't control the train of thought in the thread and the thread doesn't go the way you want it to.

I happen to disagree with your reasoning - deal with it.

Which leads us back to you and your little "correlation is not causation yet that's how I am interpreting the data" fallacy.

Non sequitur much?

I have an idea of the causal relationship. Low Jumping = fewer headers won = goals conceded through being outjumped/unable to win headers at set-pieces = poor ratings. Is there some third-party effect which is a function of both? Why don't we investigate that?

Correlation does not imply causation but if you had bothered to read the rest of the article you will find it is really difficult to create a counterfact. The only real way to justify it is with a controlled experiment - 11 on 11, all players the same barring centre-backs' Jumping, no external effects, no transfers, same tactics - and so on. I'm planning on setting that up one day and any correlation we find here is the comparison of the control vs. Jumping change. Then any differences seen will be most likely to do with the Jumping and nothing but.

Of course this is really hard and such a tight experiment loses generality - can we honestly apply such a tight experiment and generalise it to the rest of the game? No, which is why quick experiments like these shouldn't be dismissed because of cum hoc ergo propter hoc (lots of experiments and papers are based on these - will you tell them all that correlation does not imply causation?). It's a bit like saying your screenshots are useless because they can be faked.

If you have a reason to believe that Jumping vs. Ratings is a victim of correlation not implying causation feel free to state what the relationship is and why it is not valid. Don't assume it's wrong - therefore it's wrong.

[SFraser]

There is nothing to believe. Ratings are the result of a large number of match actions, themselves the result of a large number of variables, one of which is Jumping. In a compound value such as Ratings, high or low values for components will produce higher or lower Ratings. This is known, it's not even up for debate, yet you reject evidence of this when low Jumping is combined to high Ratings.

You are missing the point, and in a ludicrous fashion.

[Katarian]

Could that not be put down to the difference in ability to some extent? Not arguing either way on this point, just wondering.

Well I can go back to when I was in the Championship or League One, and then there was nearly always more free kicks and corners in the leagues I was managing in. It wasn't jstu because I let in loads of corners either , my team is actually decent at defending set pieces it's open play that is the problem :o.

The pattern is exactly the same in Full Detail leagues as non full detail leagues in my save, i.e zero pattern. I am getting a bit tired of producing mountains of evidence to refute every single claim in this thread, and either having people ignore it completely, shift the goalposts again, or claim it is false because it happens to be Jonny Evans against Dzeko.

First off let me say I am with you. It is possible to get low jumping CB to play well, anecdotally they will play appallingly more regularly that drags down their average rating but I don't pick players on average rating. The reason for only providing Full detail leagues is that the games simulated in other details don't follow exactly the same rules as a Full detail league, otherwise why have that option? It's a bit like rolling a six sided dice to generate some stats and then comparing them to some stats generated by rolling a four sided dice, it's mathematically unsound and open to (even more) debate/dispute.

[x42bn6]

There is nothing to believe. Ratings are the result of a large number of match actions, themselves the result of a large number of variables, one of which is Jumping. In a compound value such as Ratings, high or low values for components will produce higher or lower Ratings. This is known, it's not even up for debate, yet you reject evidence of this when low Jumping is combined to high Ratings.

You are missing the point, and in a ludicrous fashion.

And like I said, this all averages out with more data, by the Law of Large Numbers.

You're simply not listening to me.

[pauliowigs]

A couple of small pointers and observations.

There seems to be three bands of people on here, three types of argument.

The first is what was orignally put forward, that it is too difficult to get good centrebacks with lower than ideal jumping to perform well over the course of a season. They appear to play ok in the match engine but they get low average ratings over the course of a season. (I class myself in this purely from my experiances of FM 10, and I'll be the first to admit i haven't run a number of special experiments.)

The second, argued predominantly by SFraser is that this is a non-issue and if a defender is good, but is lacking slightly in the jumping department it is more than possible for them to get adequate average ratings.

The third argument I'm seeing is along the lines of.... of course it is difficult, defenders with low jumping should not do well, (the same argument that bought to the table that strikers with low finishing ought also be poo and midfielders with low passing).

A number of posts seem to now be jumping on the bandwagon of this third argument, and I can only guess that they are basing this on there own experiances with FM, and there expectations of the game.

I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that argument 2 and argument 3 do not agree with eachother. The people saying, "of course the guys with low jumping play crap" are closer to agreeing with all the popele who feel players with low jumping do not play well enough, than with Sfraser who is claiming that they play fine.

By saying of course they play crap we are agreeing on what happens in FM10.3, all we would then disagree on is wheter it actually should.

S Fraser is trying to actually show that this behaviour doesn't even happen in FM which leaves me with a few issues.

Firstly all the screenies posted from the leagues that are not running in full detail cannot really add weight to this argument. In fact, I would agree with SFrasers findings here, centrebacks with low jumping can and often do get high average ratings in leagues that are not running in full detail. We know it uses a slightly different system, and doesn't simulate matches in the same way.

In responce to SFraser's Championship players that have been posted from Full League detail league, whislt i agree it somewhat supports his argument I would point out a minor criticism, or at least my issue with the example given. Obviously when we were discussing the Premiership we were discussing players that had jumping in the range of 12 or below.

To hop down a division and post Luke Chambers with his jumping of 12, it is obviously not as proportinaly low as if he were playing in the Premiership. An attributte is not low or high for a player based just on the number, but it is also relative to the divison they play in. To put this into perspective i'm sure a player with a jumping of 11 would be considered a good jumper in the blue square south/north. Likewise i would think Aaron Hughes and, in particular my Alex Craig, who was a leading star for the prem would have got higher average ratings in the championship.

To clarify something else noone is saying that it is impossible to get a high rating in a match with a centreback with low jumping, but that they do not seem to perform to there ability over a period of games.

Curiously, given that you think it isn't an issue (Sfraser) why do you think that so many people believe it to be the case (either correctly so, or incorrectly so)?.

Also I think some people should cool it a little bit in here theres no need for hostility and rudeness.

[deejay10]

^^^There is a fourth band. I personally feel headers won is too much of an influence on match ratings, ahead of say interceptions/tackles for defenders. Its just the way match ratings are weighted that is at present slightly unbalanced, and that is the only point I care about in this thread. Same as dribbles for wingers, even though they might not be that effective. Same with headers for strikers, even if those headers didn't create anything.

That is why defenders with excellent jumping, but poorer attributes in other areas, get higher ratings than their ability/performance deserves.

[deejay10]

There is nothing to believe. Ratings are the result of a large number of match actions, themselves the result of a large number of variables, one of which is Jumping. In a compound value such as Ratings, high or low values for components will produce higher or lower Ratings. This is known, it's not even up for debate, yet you reject evidence of this when low Jumping is combined to high Ratings.

You are missing the point, and in a ludicrous fashion.

You are so closed minded you are missing the point, and in a ludicrous fashion as well. We all know that the jumping attribute contributes to match ratings, its just how much{/I] it contributes comparitively to, say, interceptions.

[SFraser]

You are so closed minded you are missing the point, and in a ludicrous fashion as well. We all know that the jumping attribute contributes to match ratings, its just how much{/I] it contributes comparitively to, say, interceptions.

No I am not missing the point at all, what you said in the last part of the quote is the only point viable for discussion.

The point you are missing is that Jumping alone is not the sole factor that determines Ratings, thus whether or not header win % is overly weighted in ratings, it is still possible to achieve high ratings with low Jumping Centrebacks by achieving high results in other areas that contribute to ratings. (And I have shown proof of this repeatedly).

An issue of overly weighted header win % in ratings can only equal increased punishment for losing headers, not absolute punishment irrespective of all other conditions.

Or to put it another way, if the claim "Low Jumping = Low Ratings" were true then Jumping would have to be the only attribute involved in calculating ratings. Everyone that plays FM knows it is not, thus the claim "Low Jumping = Low Ratings" must be false precisely because there are other factors involved in ratings, while the claim "header win % might be overly weighted" could very well have substance.

Don't accuse me of missing the point. Apparently I am the only one here that can see the difference between the various claims being offered for discussion.

[x42bn6]

No, you're missing the point. If you take enough data then all the latent or hidden effects are averaged out by the Law of Large Numbers - why else do scientists repeat their experiments again and again?

[SFraser]

No, you're missing the point. If you take enough data then all the latent or hidden effects are averaged out by the Law of Large Numbers - why else do scientists repeat their experiments again and again?

You are a bit of a brick wall aren't you?

Let's say you averaged out all ratings for Centrebacks with "low" Jumping and compared them to Centrebacks with "high" Jumping and found those with "low" Jumping had on average lower ratings, does this mean:

A: It is impossible for a Centreback with "low" Jumping to get a high rating?

B: It is impossible for a Centreback with "low" Jumping to get consistently high ratings?

[x42bn6]

Let's say you averaged out all ratings for Centrebacks with "low" Jumping and compared them to Centrebacks with "high" Jumping and found those with "low" Jumping had on average lower ratings, does this mean:

Red herring - I didn't do that. I did no averaging whatsoever. I did not enforce any sort of arbitrary "high" or "low" Jumping.

Talk about what I did, not what I didn't do.

Averaging out in groups like that is the opposite of blocking is supposed to achieve. Quite frankly it's wrong to do as well.

And I'm not answering the question about whether it's impossible or not. I'm answering the question about it possibly being too heavily weighted.

[SFraser]

I'm answering the question about it possibly being too heavily weighted.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that is not a possibility.

And I'm not answering the question about whether it's impossible or not.

This is where you become rediculous.