*SPOILERS* Distribution of PA in the database

[MAINBOY]

I have an youngster who has 90 as his current abillity but has -7 for potential abillity.

What does the potential abillity mean?

Some youngsters have -9 etc. Does -7, -8, -9, - 10 means they can become world class or rubbish?

[The Welsh Lad]

I have an youngster who has 90 as his current abillity but has -7 for potential abillity.

What does the potential abillity mean?

Some youngsters have -9 etc. Does -7, -8, -9, - 10 means they can become world class or rubbish?

If you look through the following link it will give you a break-down of what the minus figures mean.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/275980-Football-Manager-2012-Editors-Hideaway-Resources-amp-FAQ-*PLEASE-READ-BEFORE-POSTING*

[SCIAG]

I don't think this is true at all. I agree that quality practice is generally vital to succeed as a professional footballer, but it is not a guarantee by any means. Many, many children put in countless hours of practice in various activities, but they never reach a professional level of skill due to a lack of inborn physical and mental capabilities. Just look at the academies of professional sports teams. Countless kids go through them, they practice incessantly, they receive loads of parental support, they have access to the same facilities and coaches, they believe they are heading to a career as a professional footballer... but then reality sets in and it turns out that only a select few actually progress to the next level. What sets those few apart is not a few extra hours on the training field but the fact that their inborn capabilities allowed them to make more of those thousands of hours of quality practice.

My sister, for example, did pretty much nothing but play tennis from the moment she could swing a racket. She spent her entire youth on the courts practicing and going to youth tournaments. When other girls her age would be out shopping or chatting on the phone, she would be lifting weights or running laps if she wasn't practicing her serve. And she was good, very good... for an amateur, but when it came time to step up to a level where she was competing against likely future professionals, she just didn't have the pure reflexes, speed and endurance to effectively compete. Now, from the perspective of an average fellow on the street, she was (and still is) an extremely athletic person, but when you hit the professional level, the margin of natural talent needed to succeed becomes extremely narrow relative to the whole population.

The same goes for things like music. Thousands upon thousands of kids learn to play instruments and pour countless hours of work into it, but very few of them go on to have the skill level needed to be professional musicians (excepting stuff like pop music where actual skill isn't really necessary). Some kids practice like crazy and never really have the capability to play much more than marching band standards. Some kids practice just two hours per day and are able to play complex concertos by the time they're 10 years old.

It's unfair, but when you have 6.8 billion humans running around, slight twists of genetic fortune do matter a lot when you're talking about professions that only have a few thousand openings.

EDIT: With all that in mind, it might be more realistic for SI to have potential measured as the rate at which someone progresses from a certain amount/quality of practice, as opposed to just a fixed ceiling flatly dictating their absolute potential, but this would be incredibly complex and difficult to program.

Pure quantity of practice won't do it alone, you need to have a high quality of practice too. You have to be constantly working on different facets of your game with better and better coaches and playing against better and better opponents.

Roger Federer is widely regarded as the most talented tennis player of the era, but when he plays real tennis (an old fashioned game which requires the same physical qualities as the tennis we are all familiar with), he's no better than you and I, because he can't draw upon the little hints he's picked up from hours of playing tennis. It doesn't matter that he has world class reflexes and can land a ball on a sixpence. Speed and endurance also aren't things you are born with, nor are reflexes, they are things that are trained. The best long distance runners in the world (the masses of Kenyans and Ethiopians) come from a very small area, and run tens of miles a day at altitude to get to school.

One road in Reading has produced a wildly disproportionate number of England's top table tennis players in the past few decades. It just happens to be a road with garages large enough for everyone to own table tennis tables, in the catchment area for a primary school with the best table tennis coach in the country teaching PE, and a very good table tennis club just down the road. That isn't down to a genetic mutation in the area.

Schools for people hoping to become orchestra-quality musicians can predict fairly accurately how good a student is going to be just due to experience. When studies were done trying to link the skill levels of pupils to various factors, the only one that showed correlation was practice time. Those who had practiced for 10,000 hours or more usually went on to play in the best orchestras in Europe. Those who had practised for 8,000 hours or more could expect to play in a good orchestra and make a living, and the rest (typically between 6,000 and ~7,800 hours practice) would go on to be music teachers or similar.

With the exception of savants (about one in ten thousand people) who have a narrow skill that they can acquire with less practice than most people, and people with a cognitive or physical disability that stops them reaching a minimum standard in an activity, the weight of evidence seems to be that quality practice will allow anyone to master a complex skill (though they need a minimum of genetics- basketball players absolutely must be 5'10 or taller (probably much taller) or they don't have a chance). That's pretty irrelevant to this conversation because most of that practice will already be done by the time a player hits 16, and by then you can put limits on how good a player will be. I mean, I didn't learn to walk until I was nearly three years old, and I didn't learn to run properly until I was 7 or 8, which stopped me being able to put in the practice needed to become a world class footballer. If I'd been in the game as a 16 year old, a PA of 10 would have reflected that I didn't practice enough, and when I did practice it was with a low quality of player for several years because I was behind.

[x42bn6]

I understand that some people may end up not being able to make the grade, this can be presented with newgens that have abysmal starting attributes throughout the range i.e. Mental, Physical, Technical and Maybe Personal traits aswell. So even if you tutor them to become Determined etc. their CA is so far off they may never make premier league standard by the age of 18 but if they drop down to the lower leagues with an uncapped PA they may become decent premier league players by the age of 24/25 due to playing time.

Now how SI work out the calculations for this to work is another story.

CA isn't the only factor. They could be wasting their talent, or be unlucky enough to be at a club that doesn't appreciate/can't use them (i.e. a winger at a club that doesn't use wingers), or be stuck behind too many players in the pecking order, or even just be suffering too many injuries.

So "high CA but turns out rubbish" should be possible.

[x42bn6]

If I'd been in the game as a 16 year old, a PA of 10 would have reflected that I didn't practice enough, and when I did practice it was with a low quality of player for several years because I was behind.

If you were a player in the game, I would argue you wouldn't need a "PA" - all you'd need is attributes reflecting you lack the skills that are much more difficult to develop when you get older (just as players develop quickest at 16-21, and stop developing at around 27-30), and that your rubbish ability ceiling would logically follow anyway.

[The Welsh Lad]

CA isn't the only factor. They could be wasting their talent, or be unlucky enough to be at a club that doesn't appreciate/can't use them (i.e. a winger at a club that doesn't use wingers), or be stuck behind too many players in the pecking order, or even just be suffering too many injuries.

So "high CA but turns out rubbish" should be possible.

It comes down to calculations for the final outcome of a players ability.

Starting CA + Match Experience (Standard + Time) + Training Facility Standard + Quality of Coaches - Injury Time - Lack of Match Experience = PA

So

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]+ factors[/TD]

[TD]higher than - factors[/TD]

[TD]= improvement[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]+ factors[/TD]

[TD]equal to - factors[/TD]

[TD]= no change[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]+ factors[/TD]

[TD]lower than - factors[/TD]

[TD]= Decline[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Obvious the calculation is more complex than the example I've put but hopefully you get my drift.

So PA is not capped and newgens starting with lower CA will take longer to develop, then a newgen with a higher CA given that the calculations work out has a plus.

If Newgen is playing in BSP and doesn't get injured and is playing week in week out whether it be yth, res, 1st team you should see signs of improvement but not the same has a newgen playing in the EPL.

Effectively newgens with higher CA are more likely to have a better PA but its not set in stone.

Hopefully you get what I'm trying to explain.

[x42bn6]

Ah, I see. I agree with it.

I've written posts and posts on this subject... Too many.

[Jack Rudd]

Schools for people hoping to become orchestra-quality musicians can predict fairly accurately how good a student is going to be just due to experience. When studies were done trying to link the skill levels of pupils to various factors, the only one that showed correlation was practice time. Those who had practiced for 10,000 hours or more usually went on to play in the best orchestras in Europe. Those who had practised for 8,000 hours or more could expect to play in a good orchestra and make a living, and the rest (typically between 6,000 and ~7,800 hours practice) would go on to be music teachers or similar.

But the students at those schools aren't chosen at random from the base population; they're overwhelmingly biased towards those who, if such a thing as innate talent exists, have it in abundance. If you analyse a sample where one variable has an abnormally narrow range, then every other variable you're testing for will have its apparent importance magnified.

[dSquib]

I too was born to not be a footballer, and I fulfill that promise every single day.

[dSquib]

Should it be agreed as a general principle then, that -10 is off except for a player who has established himself in the first team at a top club while still in his teens?

[x42bn6]

But the students at those schools aren't chosen at random from the base population; they're overwhelmingly biased towards those who, if such a thing as innate talent exists, have it in abundance. If you analyse a sample where one variable has an abnormally narrow range, then every other variable you're testing for will have its apparent importance magnified.

There's nothing wrong with testing like that. If you want to show that a certain level of training has an effect, you will need a control and a group where a few things are different.

The hypothesis likely has nothing to do with the street, but the facilities. Such a study might have issues being generalised as it is so specific, but that doesn't invalidate the study methodology as such.

[Jack Rudd]

There's nothing wrong with testing like that. If you want to show that a certain level of training has an effect, you will need a control and a group where a few things are different.

True. And in showing that high-quality practice has a substantial effect, it did its job admirably. What it did not do was say anything about the variables it was effectively holding constant.

[x42bn6]

Should it be agreed as a general principle then, that -10 is off except for a player who has established himself in the first team at a top club while still in his teens?

It doesn't work like that. There are no hard-and-fast rules, really.

But given PA 165 is defined as "world-class", a -10 player is very likely to become world-class (barring injury or something), will on average be as roughly as good as Xavi, and is potentially superior to Messi and Ronaldo. So that's a pretty tough set of criteria to judge against.

[x42bn6]

True. And in showing that high-quality practice has a substantial effect, it did its job admirably. What it did not do was say anything about the variables it was effectively holding constant.

Without looking at the study, you cannot really say. There are various tactics you can employ should a sample be small (and you can do nothing about), but you will have to judge the study on its merits.

They could have, for example, blocked the survey appropriately to account for these effects.

[THOG]

Put it this way... None of this suggests a limit as the game is implying.

I agree. I think PA is a generally poor way to model potential, if only because an individual's exact potential is impossible for any person to really judge and quantify.

Messi is hardly a winner of a genetic lottery, but used it to his advantage. Big and strong is always going to help in football, but wiry midgets can be good too.

But the key to Messi is that he has singular advantages that turn his lack of size into an advantage. To quote youth team compatriots, he has legs like fingers. Certainly, practice and top class training helped him get where he is today, but my point is that, even given the same background (nurture factors, in other words), very few people would be able to achieve his level of coordination. There are genetic factors at work that enabled Messi to become who he is.

And to be clear, I'm not saying genes are the exclusive factor in determining whether someone becomes a pro-footballer, I'm saying they are one of several excluding factors. Yes, you need the right training, you need the practice, you need the mentality... but if you're not genetically predisposed to a certain degree of athleticism and coordination, you're going to hit a limit that is simply going to keep you out of the pros and this is the reality that faces literally thousands of determined young footballers every year.

too long to quote

Again, I didn't say practice, mentality and what-not weren't important. I just said that, in a sport as widely practiced as football, genes are going to be a decisive factor to the extent that they do determine and limit the rate and extent of physical and mental development. It is absolutely the case that if you take a million people with different genetic constitutions and very similar personalities, provide them with the same set of facilities and trainers, you will still end up with a vast range of skill levels. This is what happens at football academies all the time.

To use the case of Roger Federer and real tennis: first of all, his physical skills still would benefit him, but my point is that if you took Federer and I, gave us both the same training regime in real tennis and somehow made us so we were both just as eager to succeed, he would almost certainly develop into a vastly better player than me simply as a result of a more effective basic physical "blueprint."

And while a specific high level of speed and endurance isn't something you possess from birth, you are born with a basic, hard-coded skeletal structure, muscular structure, rate at which your body amasses muscle, rate at which your nervous system develops and fine tunes your reflexes... these are all things significantly influenced by genetics. So while you have to train to get your speed and endurance up to their full potential, some people have a basic physical constitution that allows them to become faster and tougher than the vast majority of the species could ever hope to be.

The best long distance runners in the world (the masses of Kenyans and Ethiopians) come from a very small area, and run tens of miles a day at altitude to get to school.

I would argue that the fact that the best long distance runners come from a very small area with a shared genetic history supports my point, especially since Kenyans and Ethiopians aren't the only people who travel long distances on foot.

One road in Reading has produced a wildly disproportionate number of England's top table tennis players in the past few decades. It just happens to be a road with garages large enough for everyone to own table tennis tables, in the catchment area for a primary school with the best table tennis coach in the country teaching PE, and a very good table tennis club just down the road. That isn't down to a genetic mutation in the area.

No, but table tennis is a niche sport and if you have a niche sport with a relatively small population of serious players, you lower the bar one must clear to become a professional and, hence, it will be accessible to a larger portion of the population given the right environment. When you're talking about something as widely and vigorously practiced as football in England, the importance of one's genetic constitution drastically increases, but even in the case of table tennis, many people just aren't going to be able to develop the necessary level of reflexes and coordination, even if they practice in an optimal environment.

I mean, I didn't learn to walk until I was nearly three years old, and I didn't learn to run properly until I was 7 or 8, which stopped me being able to put in the practice needed to become a world class footballer. If I'd been in the game as a 16 year old, a PA of 10 would have reflected that I didn't practice enough, and when I did practice it was with a low quality of player for several years because I was behind.

But barring injury (which may be your case), relatively slower rates of physical development are attributable to inherent genetic factors. I have a two year-old now, so I see very small child engaging in physical activity all the time. Even without any training, some are just faster than others, some are stronger, some get tired easier, some are more nimble... and these inherent capabilities are going to be dictating how much and how quickly they develop throughout their lives.

[I<3AFC]

Put it this way... None of this suggests a limit as the game is implying. I'm not sure if a "baseline" is a valid word because it is possible that there are cross-factors between nature and nurture (i.e. poor genetics but configured in such a way that it can be nurtured - short and skinny and with a physical disability, Messi is hardly a winner of a genetic lottery, but used it to his advantage). Big and strong is always going to help in football, but wiry midgets can be good too.

The 10,000 hours rule, however, is used as a rough guide... For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29

Whilst in general this is true i'd have to say if you'd look at the muscle types and muscle fibres in Messi's body he'd have the right set to help him become world class and that is entirely genetic you can't develop these things. For instance Usain Bolt (different sport but same principle) will have a high amount of Type 2A muscle fibres in his body that allow for his explosive speed. I could never run like Usain Bolt no matter how much i trained or how perfect my technique is because i don't have these muscle fibres just like most people don't because they are rarely found in humans. I do agree that practice could make me into a decent footballer and that if Messi didn't practice whenever possible he wouldn't be anywhere near as good as he is but his body will make him better than me in the long-run and there's nothing i can do to change that. I agree with you about what your saying in FM that you can never truely predict how good someone will become and that moving -PA bands would be good and if it was based on performances and facilities/coaching.

[Smurf]

You can totally develop the muscles for any sport. That's ridiculous. All this talk about muscle fibres is silly.

[x42bn6]

You can totally develop the muscles for any sport. That's ridiculous. All this talk about muscle fibres is silly.

I think it's an open question, really, whether someone with poor genes can actually develop things like fast twitch fibres.

Medicine is developing all the time...

[I<3AFC]

You can totally develop the muscles for any sport. That's ridiculous. All this talk about muscle fibres is silly.

I'm not saying you can't develop the muscle's i'm just saying that the type of muscles you have (which you can do nothing about only try to improve how good they are) will in the long-run provide you with a barrier because you aren't built to perform at a footballers optimum. That doesn't mean you can't be a good player it just means that you have a disadvantage.

I think it's an open question, really, whether someone with poor genes can actually develop things like fast twitch fibres.

Medicine is developing all the time...

With medicine evolving as it is it's entirely possible that you will be able to develop them in the future but ATM they are a natural limit. Like i said if you max your limit you always have the chance of being good at something whatever muscle types you have.

[The Welsh Lad]

I think this is going to far left-field talking about human genetics. We all know people are made up differently and develop at different rates but in term of what we are talking about in PA for FM is how to implement that correctly, because in real life you wouldn't go to a 16 year old, you'll never be good enough for the premier league or you'll never be a footballer. With the current PA rating system in FM that is what is effectively happening.

There is no reason why Barry Bannan cannot become the next Xavi given the right factors to achieve this, but FM now states he cant become the next Xavi even if he was sold to Barca because of his capped PA.

Don't forget players start at 15 - 16 in FM so all the kids that have shown they are not genetically built for football have already been filtered out. Its about how to find a realistic balance on these players to work out thier PA without being capped.

[SCIAG]

I would argue that the fact that the best long distance runners come from a very small area with a shared genetic history supports my point, especially since Kenyans and Ethiopians aren't the only people who travel long distances on foot.

I think their genetics are actually remarkably diverse, more so than most population samples of that size.

One nationality (Kenyans?) absolutely dominated for a long time until the Ethiopians started a proper training system which has tipped the balance.

They aren't the only people who travel long distances, but they are the largest group of people who run long distances at high altitudes every day.

I wish I could give you more definite answers, unfortunately I've lent Bounce to my dad and I don't have any other copy of the acknowledgements/appendix.

[x42bn6]

I'm not saying you can't develop the muscle's i'm just saying that the type of muscles you have (which you can do nothing about only try to improve how good they are) will in the long-run provide you with a barrier because you aren't built to perform at a footballers optimum. That doesn't mean you can't be a good player it just means that you have a disadvantage.

I think "barrier" is the wrong word. Your genetics do not imply a limit.

It is like a poker hand... Sometimes you get a good hand, and sometimes you get a bad hand. But you can work with bad hands, just as you can waste good hands.

They are not necessarily separate and distinct, either. One poker player could be brilliant at a certain type of hand or a certain type of bluffing, and with some hands (not necessarily good nor bad) this player could be quite awesome.

But a bad hand in no way restricts what you can do with a poker game. You might have to play differently, but it doesn't imply a limit of any sort.

[Smurf]

I'm not saying you can't develop the muscle's i'm just saying that the type of muscles you have (which you can do nothing about only try to improve how good they are) will in the long-run provide you with a barrier because you aren't built to perform at a footballers optimum. That doesn't mean you can't be a good player it just means that you have a disadvantage.

It means no such thing.

What makes a good fighter? What makes a good runner? What makes a good discuss thrower?

What about long throws? Surely all players train at this, well throw in players. And you look at Rory Delap, he has a fearsome throw. Nobody in the prem can match it. Difference is that Rory had javellin training as a kid.

All these kids get the same training. It's just that some are better than others.

And in that, some are better at a young age but drift off. And some are not so good and push on to greater heights.

[SCIAG]

I think this is going to far left-field talking about human genetics. We all know people are made up differently and develop at different rates but in term of what we are talking about in PA for FM is how to implement that correctly, because in real life you wouldn't go to a 16 year old, you'll never be good enough for the premier league or you'll never be a footballer. With the current PA rating system in FM that is what is effectively happening.

There is no reason why Barry Bannan cannot become the next Xavi given the right factors to achieve this, but FM now states he cant become the next Xavi even if he was sold to Barca because of his capped PA.

Don't forget players start at 15 - 16 in FM so all the kids that have shown they are not genetically built for football have already been filtered out. Its about how to find a realistic balance on these players to work out thier PA without being capped.

I am certain I could go to the majority of 16 year olds at professional academies in this country (let alone those who haven't made those standards) and list those that have no chance of being a professional footballer.

I appreciate that Barry Bannan is just an example, but he's already what, 19? Barcelona will have kids in their academy (Thiago, for one) who are at a similar standard to him, have done more training to play in Barcelona's system, and have advanced their technical skills further. If Bannan is going to be any more than a nifty playmaker, maybe the best Scot of his generation, then there would be some indication of it by now.

[x42bn6]

I am certain I could go to the majority of 16 year olds at professional academies in this country (let alone those who haven't made those standards) and list those that have no chance of being a professional footballer.

You can never rule it out, though... You can never say for certain.

You can make educated guesses, but you never know.

And in a lot of ways, for a gameplay perspective, you don't need to care. It is in theory possible for a game to end 21-34, but this is so unlikely it is not worth worrying about. Why don't we have to worry about it? Because the match engine is sufficiently balanced enough to ensure that unless both sides (likely human) play an idiotic formation, it's very unlikely to happen.

Which is what SI need to do - make the development and training engine so awesome, you never need to worry about players needing PA values to balance the game out.

[I<3AFC]

It means no such thing.

What makes a good fighter? What makes a good runner? What makes a good discuss thrower?

What about long throws? Surely all players train at this, well throw in players. And you look at Rory Delap, he has a fearsome throw. Nobody in the prem can match it. Difference is that Rory had javellin training as a kid.

All these kids get the same training. It's just that some are better than others.

And in that, some are better at a young age but drift off. And some are not so good and push on to greater heights.

Okay then if i was to practice 100metre sprints religously as a youngster and ended up as a footballer. I reckon that all that training would count for absolute horse@£$% the second i got into a foot race with Walcott,Ronaldo,Bale,Messi name any quick footballer you want simply because i have less fast twitch fibres than them. Doesn't mean i'm bad at football or that i'm slow it just means they are better built for the physical challenges. Rory Delap is an exelent example of this. He's a good footballer who has proved himself to be of a Mid/high-ish premier league quality and has used his training with the javelin to develop a demon throw-in but if you were to train to throw a javelin for the same amount of time with the same amount of effort i really doubt you could throw a football as far as him unless your body was built in a way that allowed you to throw the ball that far. Anyway this i tottally of the topic so im gunna stop :rolleyes:

[x42bn6]

Eugene Tyson raises a good point about "what makes a good footballer"... The definition of that changes all the time and is likely going to be modeled after the best players in the world. Who knows - maybe in 2030, the best players are players that can throw the ball like Rory Delap.

[I<3AFC]

Eugene Tyson raises a good point about "what makes a good footballer"... The definition of that changes all the time and is likely going to be modeled after the best players in the world. Who knows - maybe in 2030, the best players are players that can throw the ball like Rory Delap.

It's all personal really is a good footballer someone who's absolutely stacked with upper body muscles and bulldozes his way through or can the slow small not particularly strong player be better than him because he simply has a better brain when it comes to football. IMO i'd have the slow player with the good brain 99 times out of 100 but someone else would have the strong bulldozer.

[The Welsh Lad]

I am certain I could go to the majority of 16 year olds at professional academies in this country (let alone those who haven't made those standards) and list those that have no chance of being a professional footballer.

I appreciate that Barry Bannan is just an example, but he's already what, 19? Barcelona will have kids in their academy (Thiago, for one) who are at a similar standard to him, have done more training to play in Barcelona's system, and have advanced their technical skills further. If Bannan is going to be any more than a nifty playmaker, maybe the best Scot of his generation, then there would be some indication of it by now.

Has the game states players develop most up until 21 so Bannan still has 2 years, who knows how he could develop if he went to Barca learning from the likes of Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas and their coaching set-up.

But the game has it stands wont allow him to improve above his static PA.

Has I've stated earlier it PA should be dynamic and be calculated using a number of factors.

Ashley Young has already developed since leaving Villa for Man Utd due to different factors that weren't present in Villa whether it be the coaching styles, standard of other players, the manager etc.

Thinking about it I would like to know what PA rating C. Ronaldo had when he was at Sporting.

[Indi75]

How exactly is this spoilerfest still camped in GD?

[I<3AFC]

Has the game states players develop most up until 21 so Bannan still has 2 years, who knows how he could develop if he went to Barca learning from the likes of Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas and their coaching set-up.

But the game has it stands wont allow him to improve above his static PA.

Has I've stated earlier it PA should be dynamic and be calculated using a number of factors.

Ashley Young has already developed since leaving Villa for Man Utd due to different factors that weren't present in Villa whether it be the coaching styles, standard of other players, the manager etc.

Thinking about it I would like to know what PA rating C. Ronaldo had when he was at Sporting.

I think the main reason Ashley Young has progressed since joining UTD is the level of players he's playing with. Villa players are certainly good footballers but training week in week out with the likes of Rooney, Nani,Fletcher etc etc will improve you even if it's you just trying to prove to doubters that you're good enough to play for such a big club.

[x42bn6]

How exactly is this spoilerfest still camped in GD?

What's wrong with it?

[The Welsh Lad]

I think the main reason Ashley Young has progressed since joining UTD is the level of players he's playing with. Villa players are certainly good footballers but training week in week out with the likes of Rooney' date=' Nani,Fletcher etc etc will improve you even if it's you just trying to prove to doubters that you're good enough to play for such a big club.[/quote']

That's the point I'm trying to make but in FM he wouldn't develop due to his static PA, whereas in real life PA isn't static

[I<3AFC]

That's the point I'm trying to make but in FM he wouldn't develop due to his static PA, whereas in real life PA isn't static

I agree with you. Anything can happen IRL to mean that your PA can grow or even that it can deteriorate e.g Aaron Ramsey's broken leg. The main problem with a cap is that a players PA is never the same from 1 day to the next or from 1 game to the other. Everyones PA is constantly changing and sadly ATM this either can't be replicated or SI haven't tried it. Would be very difficult to implement something that realistic but i agree a simpler version of prgressive Pa should be plausible

[Smurf]

I think the main reason Ashley Young has progressed since joining UTD is the level of players he's playing with. Villa players are certainly good footballers but training week in week out with the likes of Rooney' date=' Nani,Fletcher etc etc will improve you even if it's you just trying to prove to doubters that you're good enough to play for such a big club.[/quote']

It's shocking that A Young didn't move before clubs needed to register a certain amount of players trained in England... oh wait coincidence...

Ashely Young is a good player, has been for years. If the rule to have English trained players in the squad was not introduced he'd still be plying his trade at Villa.

[I<3AFC]

It's shocking that A Young didn't move before clubs needed to register a certain amount of players trained in England... oh wait coincidence...

Ashely Young is a good player, has been for years. If the rule to have English trained players in the squad was not introduced he'd still be plying his trade at Villa.

Probably some truth in that although i'd like to believe ot was partly due to him being a good player. You could say exactly the same thing over all the villa midfield to have left though e.g. Downing, do Liverpool really need to spend £20M on him when they could have got someone else for £10 or £15M who's foriegn

[Smurf]

Did Man Utd need to spend so much on Jones? Probably wouldn't be in England squad if not at United... so United buy him to fill their quota and he gets England call ups.

This is a different topic.

[x42bn6]

It's shocking that A Young didn't move before clubs needed to register a certain amount of players trained in England... oh wait coincidence...

Ashely Young is a good player, has been for years. If the rule to have English trained players in the squad was not introduced he'd still be plying his trade at Villa.

United have no problems filling up their Premier League homegrown quota, nor the Champions League homegrown quota, even without Ashley Young.

[Smurf]

I suppose just a co-incidence they bought English trained players in a burst then.

[x42bn6]

I suppose just a co-incidence they bought English trained players in a burst then.

We bought players to strengthen the squad, and it just so happens they were English.

As for Jones, we simply met his buyout clause.

A list of players that qualify as homegrown: http://community.manutd.com/forums/p/198840/1782135.aspx

[Smurf]

Yeh not the thread for this discussion. Thanks though.

[cederic]

Forget PA, Adam Morgan's started my game with a finishing skill of 12. 12! He's the most natural finisher I've seen since (and including) Fowler.

I have no idea whether he's a -9, a -8 or a -2, and certainly there are a few elements of his game that need a lot of work, but 12 finishing is just ludicrous.

[eastley]

This is what has always annoyed me about FM

Take Rooney for example, when he burst on the scene as a 16 year old, he was near instant success. That does not happen in FM, you have to wait years for a player to do anything. Go sign a higly rated 16 year old striker, he won't start scoring regularly until he is 21-22.

Also, keep in mind, Rooney was signed by Everton at the age of 9, why can't this happen in game?

[The Welsh Lad]

12 is pretty good for a 16 year old

[eastley]

12 is pretty good for a 16 year old

Rooney was scoring 100 goals in a season on regular basis since he was 9 years old.

At 16, his finishing should be 16-17..

[The Welsh Lad]

Rooney was scoring 100 goals in a season on regular basis since he was 9 years old.

At 16, his finishing should be 16-17..

Its a different standard of football and that all I'm saying, I'm not getting into a debate that is ridiculous.

[eastley]

Rooney in first season played 37 games for 8 goals and 4 assists. His role was not a starting one, so a lot of substitutions late in games.

For me, Finishing is his ability to put the ball in the back of net, simple. Not his positioning, runs, speed or anything such as that.

Look at all the YouTube video's of his goals when he was at Everton, or even younger.

Another example, this guy, now 13 years old I think??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZ3Ye85muw

How would you rate his first touch? Footwork? And even Positioning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_865296&src_vid=4RZ3Ye85muw&v=Ugns9JL--lA

Check out his tackling!! lol

[The Welsh Lad]

Like I said it is a different standard and level of football. If at the age of 13 Rooney was scoring shed loads of goals against premier league players then yes he should be rated higher at 13 but the fact is at 13 Rooney was better than his piers at the Level i.e. opposition Defences and GK not upto the level to stop him.

The same goes for Adam Morgan.

[eastley]

Like I said it is a different standard and level of football. If at the age of 13 Rooney was scoring shed loads of goals against premier league players then yes he should be rated higher at 13 but the fact is at 13 Rooney was better than his piers at the Level i.e. opposition Defences and GK not upto the level to stop him.

The same goes for Adam Morgan.

But at 16 years old, his finishing was up there with higher profile players, that are rated 15-16 in the game.. Not 13.

Sure at 13 years old, 13 finishing is great.

[The Welsh Lad]

But at 16 years old, his finishing was up there with higher profile players, that are rated 15-16 in the game.. Not 13.

Sure at 13 years old, 13 finishing is great.

Anyway like I said Rooney is a rare occurrence by hitting the first-team at Everton at a young age. Just because a 16 year old is scoring goals in U18s like in cedric's case Adam Morgan doesn't mean he should be rated highly when the standard is low, I'm not Liverpool and I haven't scouted him so he may have a high PA but his 12 Finishing is right for what standard the player is achieving at this moment in time. If Adam Morgan was playing in the Liverpool first-team on a regular basis then their could be an argument.

Has for players being in the game under the age of 15/16, I'm certain its down to legal issues.