Underrated/overrated players on FM19

[CEVR1996]

Which are the players you think that have been rated too low or too high both in terms of attributes and CA/PA?

[FrazT]

20 minutes ago, CEVR1996 said:

Which are the players you think that have been rated too low or too high both in terms of attributes and CA/PA?

Based on what?  CA and PA are opinions of the research team, so it is hard to say that these opinions are over or underrated?  If you are going to discuss CA and PA, please take this thread to the Good Players and Teams forums as many users do not want to know the hidden details of CA and PA

[CEVR1996]

15 minutos atrás, FrazT disse:

Based on what?  CA and PA are opinions of the research team, so it is hard to say that these opinions are over or underrated?  If you are going to discuss CA and PA, please take this thread to the Good Players and Teams forums as many users do not want to know the hidden details of CA and PA

Fair enough, ignore the CA/PA part then, the attributes are more relevant for this discussion anyway, just mentioned it because boosting or decreasing attributes will always affect CA but that isn't the main point here.

[FrazT]

OK- no probs.  Just remember that these types of threads always sink into arguments about player x whose pace should be 17 and not 16 etc and is all about personal opinion ( which often do vary substantially )

[CEVR1996]

Understood and agreed. Rating players always comes down to personal opinions and views since even when working with real data while performing that action, interpretations will vary depending on the person who is looking at the information.

[Xeewaj Q.]

7 hours ago, CEVR1996 said:

Which are the players you think that have been rated too low or too high both in terms of attributes and CA/PA?

Overrated: Neymar, Mbappe.

TBH, almost every winger is overrated.

[Dagenham_Dave]

You show Cavani scoring 50 goals in a season, yet try to claim it's a player who has an average rating of 6.97 who is 'overrated'? 

[Showerman]

underrated: Varane

overrated: Van Dijk

[91427]

Phil Jones has 13 crossing which I find very strange, can't remember ever seeing a good cross from him irl. Also Azpilicueta is terrible compared to real life. I assume its because he's either footed and natural in 3 positions which will have made his CA quite high already but SI shouldn't avoid giving players the attributes they deserve just because of where their CA would end up 

[CEVR1996]

23 minutos atrás, 91427 disse:

Phil Jones has 13 crossing which I find very strange, can't remember ever seeing a good cross from him irl. Also Azpilicueta is terrible compared to real life. I assume its because he's either footed and natural in 3 positions which will have made his CA quite high already but SI shouldn't avoid giving players the attributes they deserve just because of where their CA would end up 

I agree but unfortunately that is one of the major limitations with the current CA/PA system with players from every team having to meet certain CA values according to the team's reputation and league, regardless of being underrated or overrated in certain aspects. Balancing the attributes can be very tricky so I can't blame the researchers because they dont have a lot of margin to work with and I'm sure they always try to make it as accurate as possible. It would be great if the CA/PA system could get some tweeks so that certain aspects like positional versatility, being either footed and having pace and good physical attributes wouldn't be as heavy on the CA as they are currently but that is certainly easier said than done.

[Xeewaj Q.]

1 hour ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

You show Cavani scoring 50 goals in a season, yet try to claim it's a player who has an average rating of 6.97 who is 'overrated'? 

When a player with bigger CA/PA, salary, market value performs worse than a player with lower values, it certainly means he's overrated.

[Dagenham_Dave]

36 minutes ago, Xeewaj Q. said:

When a player with bigger CA/PA, salary, market value performs worse than a player with lower values, it certainly means he's overrated.

No it doesn't. You're looking at the stats over one season at a top club that completely dominates its own domestic league. That screenshot alone tells us absolutely nothing other than Cavani has had a beast of a season. 

[enigmatic]

44 minutes ago, Xeewaj Q. said:

When a player with bigger CA/PA, salary, market value performs worse than a player with lower values, it certainly means he's overrated.

Ummm...  do you actually think the performances in FM are completely independent from attributes/CA?

I hate to break it to you, but if you gave Mbappe a lower CA, he'd perform worse still...

[santy001]

3 hours ago, CEVR1996 said:

I agree but unfortunately that is one of the major limitations with the current CA/PA system with players from every team having to meet certain CA values according to the team's reputation and league, regardless of being underrated or overrated in certain aspects. Balancing the attributes can be very tricky so I can't blame the researchers because they dont have a lot of margin to work with and I'm sure they always try to make it as accurate as possible. It would be great if the CA/PA system could get some tweeks so that certain aspects like positional versatility, being either footed and having pace and good physical attributes wouldn't be as heavy on the CA as they are currently but that is certainly easier said than done.

What is this utter arse water?

I don't mind you being wrong so much, but the fact you're just openly professing it as being a fact is a major issue. 

There is nothing that stops a researcher rating a player in any way they feel comfortable. We have a very loose structure around us, a degree of sanity checks, internal testing at SI, private beta testers and in more recent years the open/early beta testers that looks over what we submit. So, of course, I can't just submit a Stoke City team full of 200CA players. That's not because there's any SI mandated shackles; I'm just not an idiot and think that the team I support and do the research for is the best team in the world. 

- - -

Assumptions like those you're making really don't do a lot to help influence the debate regarding players in a positive way. Which is rather tragic because personally I love discussing the research elements and explaining why players are rated a certain way. I'm always happy to explain in detail the Stoke players, or, to broad-level discuss research such as what you can try and achieve through certain combinations of attributes when it comes to rating a player. It's very rare people bring good points in regards to the table when it comes to discussing players though. The vast majority are either just suggesting swings of 1 or 2 to an attribute up or down, which doesn't achieve all that much in reality. Alternatively, its focusing on a small clutch of attributes, but not being aware of how those suggested changes dramatically alter how a player will function in the game in consideration of other attributes they have.

- - -

I don't know the best place to have the discussion over players attributes/CA/PA and such without it being something you're trying to get changed. We have the data issues for if you think its wrong, but there isn't anywhere in a more laid back fashion for researchers (who wish to, we aren't required to participate on the forums) to informally discuss what they have players set-up to achieve. Which is a shame, because I actually think that kind of discussion is where there's real room for improving the data in FM. 

[ParanoidBuddha]

16 ore fa, CEVR1996 ha scritto:

in terms of attributes

Underrated: Cancelo!  

[Piperita]

Funny thing is: It is pretty hard to talk over/under within the confines of star ratings, PA and CA while also wanting players to stay as close to reality as possible. Footedness, positions and physicals play a big part in the first three while not always saying much about how a player actually plays. 

I had players with CA in their mid one-fifties who absolutely killed it and were stars in my top team full of one-seventy, one-eighties. 

Let's look at one of my favourites, Robin Knoche. I called him overrated early on because his mental stats (both visible and hidden) are insane and he is pretty good for a regular Centreback. Yet he has garbage aggression and is pretty slow. Meaning he will never make it at a top team or aggressive types of play or is often overlooked. In what he actually plays he is therefore underrated; in real life he always crawls back to playing. Yet in game Wolfsburg often sells him first chance they get (and with 5 comparable central defenders, who can blame them?) but in my system he is once again the absolute key player who plays way better than he should. 

Similarly, lower league beasts that are fast and sturdy but don't have much else. High CA, but one trick ponies. Overly versatile players, that can play everything well. By the numbers star players and will always find something yet never a key factor. 

There are a lot of players for whom compromises had to be made. Are they awesome by the numbers and play realistically or are they balanced according to real life standing? Knoche can be way overpowered but after playing him a bit longer he is almost a perfect replica. Except him easily and happily going down a league. Sadly in 19 midtable Bundesliga terms are not as interested as they were in 17. 

On the flipside, Wout Weghorst. He is still a good player ingame who yet is hard to balance. I don't have the 'new' stats ready but going by the beta he had almost no workrate and was just a basic target man while in real life that beast of a man is a pressing monster who never quits. Yet upping his workrate and aggressiveness and he is way, way overpowered. If we reduce his technical or mental stats to compensate, he is a master of nothing who won't find a real role. If we keep him like he is, he is playing as often and as good as in real life but completely differently. 

[CEVR1996]

46 minutos atrás, santy001 disse:

What is this utter arse water?

I don't mind you being wrong so much, but the fact you're just openly professing it as being a fact is a major issue. 

There is nothing that stops a researcher rating a player in any way they feel comfortable. We have a very loose structure around us, a degree of sanity checks, internal testing at SI, private beta testers and in more recent years the open/early beta testers that looks over what we submit. So, of course, I can't just submit a Stoke City team full of 200CA players. That's not because there's any SI mandated shackles; I'm just not an idiot and think that the team I support and do the research for is the best team in the world. 

- - -

Assumptions like those you're making really don't do a lot to help influence the debate regarding players in a positive way. Which is rather tragic because personally I love discussing the research elements and explaining why players are rated a certain way. I'm always happy to explain in detail the Stoke players, or, to broad-level discuss research such as what you can try and achieve through certain combinations of attributes when it comes to rating a player. It's very rare people bring good points in regards to the table when it comes to discussing players though. The vast majority are either just suggesting swings of 1 or 2 to an attribute up or down, which doesn't achieve all that much in reality. Alternatively, its focusing on a small clutch of attributes, but not being aware of how those suggested changes dramatically alter how a player will function in the game in consideration of other attributes they have.

- - -

I don't know the best place to have the discussion over players attributes/CA/PA and such without it being something you're trying to get changed. We have the data issues for if you think its wrong, but there isn't anywhere in a more laid back fashion for researchers (who wish to, we aren't required to participate on the forums) to informally discuss what they have players set-up to achieve. Which is a shame, because I actually think that kind of discussion is where there's real room for improving the data in FM. 

Well sorry for being so wrong and having you think that many people will actually look at what I said and believe it as a fact, I had my reasons to believe it to be that way and I specifically told that researchers are doing their best at rating players. I wont contradict anything you said because being a researcher, you know how things work much better than me so sorry for assuming something that I thought it made sense. People will be more encouraged to discuss whatever topics they feel necessary to do so when they aren't getting answers like that whenever they say something wrong and I believe you when you said I'm wrong, not questioning it whatsoever, its just the way the answers are given that are a bit over the top imo, owning reason doesn't make it necessary to rub it on others in a way that they feel like it would be better if they simply stopped expressing an opinion. Maybe I should have just put "imo" after the wall of text that I wrote so no one would be tricked to believe that I was stating the information as an undeniable fact.

[CEVR1996]

48 minutos atrás, ParanoidBuddha disse:

Underrated: Cancelo!  

Agreed

[Dagenham_Dave]

2 hours ago, santy001 said:

I don't mind you being wrong so much, but the fact you're just openly professing it as being a fact is a major issue. 

 

This should be this entire forum's mission statement. 

[CEVR1996]

I'll say it again, I didn't meant to state that as a fact, not sure if its worth it at this point or not. What is legitimately annoying me here is being accused of taking researchers for idiots when all I was saying there is how I felt that their task was being limited hence made more difficult by pre defined CA values and they did the best they could within those limitations which is a compliment if anything... so my feeling was wrong? That's fine but I dont think I was the only one making wrong assumptions here, people just jump to conclusions way too easily these days, seriously, make those sanity checks next time you decide to answer to someone's post...its the second time I get this kind of response in a short interval of time from a researcher and last time involved attribute discussion. To avoid anymore confusion, I'll make sure to say "imo" and " I think" every time I express an opinion even when stating facts.

[Xeewaj Q.]

10 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

No it doesn't. You're looking at the stats over one season at a top club that completely dominates its own domestic league. That screenshot alone tells us absolutely nothing other than Cavani has had a beast of a season. 

Come on. 50! goals per season. 1.21 per 90, x2 better than Neymar/Mbappe. Actually, it's the first time I see someone scored that much in FM. I agree that Ligue 1 is not that hard, but it's not much difference from England/Spain when you play for a top club.

P.S. 11 goals in champions league are not enough?

[Xeewaj Q.]

10 hours ago, enigmatic said:

Ummm...  do you actually think the performances in FM are completely independent from attributes/CA?

I hate to break it to you, but if you gave Mbappe a lower CA, he'd perform worse still...

They're not completely independent. But hidden attributes like consistency, important matches etc are important too. And some not hidden, especially Teamwork, Work Rate.

I just tried to give an example where a player with lower numbers performs x2 better than a player with higher.

So, if you give Mbappe lower CA, but boost his hidden attributes, he'll most likely perform better.

[noikeee]

37 minutos atrás, Xeewaj Q. disse:

Come on. 50! goals per season. 1.21 per 90, x2 better than Neymar/Mbappe. Actually, it's the first time I see someone scored that much in FM. I agree that Ligue 1 is not that hard, but it's not much difference from England/Spain when you play for a top club.

 P.S. 11 goals in champions league are not enough?

Your argument that Neymar and Mbappé are overrated in the game is that Cavani is performing too well in the game?

I don't get it. At all.

[Dagenham_Dave]

49 minutes ago, Xeewaj Q. said:

Come on. 50! goals per season. 1.21 per 90, x2 better than Neymar/Mbappe.

You've completely lost me on what point you're trying to make here. 

[enigmatic]

59 minutes ago, Xeewaj Q. said:

They're not completely independent. But hidden attributes like consistency, important matches etc are important too. And some not hidden, especially Teamwork, Work Rate.

I just tried to give an example where a player with lower numbers performs x2 better than a player with higher.

So, if you give Mbappe lower CA, but boost his hidden attributes, he'll most likely perform better.

Well, yes, you could also easily get Mbappe to play better by managing him better than the AI.

Hell, if all you cared about was the surprisingly meaningless average rating stat, you could artificially bump that over 7 by not bringing him off the bench in the games he didn't start! 

Or you could pretty much ignore his average rating and goals scored numbers anyway, since Mbappe's scoring 15 goals a season from an inside left position and will shred Champions League standard fullbacks with his dribbling and pace in FM, as in real life. So rated pretty much exactly as people perceive him in real life - one of the best players in the game with the potential to be the best

But yes, he won't score as many goals from an inside left position as Cavani (similar starting CA, similar hidden attributes) will leading the line and banging crosses in all day long. You might have noticed Robben didn't score as many goals as van Nistelrooy or Huntelaar or Kevin ****ing Phillips despite being a much better footballer at their respective peaks. This wasn't because Robben's real life or FM dribbling ability was "overrated"

 

[Xeewaj Q.]

55 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

You've completely lost me on what point you're trying to make here. 

It was a response to your

Quote

That screenshot alone tells us absolutely nothing other than Cavani has had a beast of a season. 

50 goals. Not a "beast". Seriously?

[Xeewaj Q.]

1 hour ago, noikeee said:

Your argument that Neymar and Mbappé are overrated in the game is that Cavani is performing too well in the game?

I don't get it. At all.

Exactly. Their salary/transfer value doesn't reflect their performance.

P.S. In-game, of course. Don't watch League1 and have no idea how they do IRL. Though from few CL matches per year and overall PSG performance in that tournament, they're not very impressive.

[Xeewaj Q.]

47 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Well, yes, you could also easily get Mbappe to play better by managing him better than the AI.

Hell, if all you cared about was the surprisingly meaningless average rating stat, you could artificially bump that over 7 by not bringing him off the bench in the games he didn't start! 

Or you could pretty much ignore his average rating and goals scored numbers anyway, since Mbappe's scoring 15 goals a season from an inside left position and will shred Champions League standard fullbacks with his dribbling and pace in FM, as in real life. So rated pretty much exactly as people perceive him in real life - one of the best players in the game with the potential to be the best

But yes, he won't score as many goals from an inside left position as Cavani (similar starting CA, similar hidden attributes) will leading the line and banging crosses in all day long. You might have noticed Robben didn't score as many goals as van Nistelrooy or Huntelaar or Kevin ****ing Phillips despite being a much better footballer at their respective peaks. This wasn't because Robben's real life or FM dribbling ability was "overrated"

 

I didn't try to "artificially bump" any ratings. All 4 strikers got the same treatment (rotation, playing as sub etc). And, of course, position. That's why I quoted all 4 of them. Double free role striker tactic. And not especially tuned for Cavani or something. Even Choupo-Moting did better than two overrated guys.

If you look again at the striker table I posted, they're sorted by goals per 90 min, not by rating. That was my point. Now you'll say "you can't judge strikers by goals per 90 min", right?

Let's stop this, ok? I really don't care how they do IRL. I'm talking solely about the in-game player. And in-game Neymar and Mbappe are not good enough.

[noikeee]

7 minutos atrás, Xeewaj Q. disse:

And in-game Neymar and Mbappe are not good enough.

So they're underperforming compared to their attributes.

This thread is about players whose attributes are better than what they are in real life. Hence, "overrated". But for whatever reason you've decided you want this thread to be about players whose performances in-game are worse than their attributes. Which has nothing to do with whether a player is overrated or not in the database, and instead depends on how the AI manages them and how the ME simulates them.

[Xeewaj Q.]

1 minute ago, noikeee said:

So they're underperforming compared to their attributes.

This thread is about players whose attributes are better than what they are in real life. Hence, "overrated". But for whatever reason you've decided you want this thread to be about players whose performances in-game are worse than their attributes. Which has nothing to do with whether a player is overrated or not in the database, and instead depends on how the AI manages them and how the ME simulates them.

6

Well, maybe. But then topic should be opened under "database issues", no?

[RBKalle]

19 ore fa, santy001 ha scritto:

of course, I can't just submit a Stoke City team full of 200CA players. That's not because there's any SI mandated shackles; I'm just not an idiot and think that the team I support and do the research for is the best team in the world. 

Clearly as a single researcher, and as a sensible person, you don't go rogue and start giving your favourite players 165CA or 17-20 attributes all across the board.

On the other hand, can you deny there must be a degree of "internal consistency" (I don't really know how to call it), where a whole team with players BELOW a certain level would get relegated with single-digits point tally, as the Top Clubs are simply too good?
Which, BTW, is what usually happens only a few seasons into the game when weaker and weaker sides get promoted and the Top Teams scoop all the available talents, opening the gap between title challengers and relegation candidates even more (due to AI's dodgy transfers and policies).

So, while I don't doubt your, or other researchers' integrity, I also can't help but feel the "balance" is kinda tipped in favour of the Top League(s), meaning ANY club in the same league as one of the Big Whales is bound to have a tiny boost just in order for them not to get "Derbied out" of the league.

And in turns, that affects the European cups too, as the slightly boosted side will make short work of clubs that IRL would probably gave them a tougher time, or even kick them out. (Motivation IRL can play a much bigger factor, but in FM we see completely one-sided ties that have become less and less common in reality).

E.g. I remember a CA of around 130 being the norm for relegation candidates in Serie A, with 140 being usually good enough for mid-table or even for rotation at EL-level. Those figures are an absolute luxury in, say, Scandinavia. Which implies your random SPAL or Leganés could be title contenders in Denmark or Norway. Then you get FC København eliminating Atalanta, Sarpsborg defeting Genk (Belgian league, I know, but still a FM mismatch) and Dudelange making it to the EL Group Stage and being surprisingly competitive against AC Milan.

BTW, it's not the researchers' fault, but maaaaybe the guidelines tend to overestimate entire leagues with the "more expensive = better" fallacy.

[santy001]

@RBKalle there is another thread on-going about this in which I did voice some thoughts on the issue. 

The reason why the more financially powerful leagues tend to be accruing higher CA's is because they being fed these players by the other leagues. These players are being rated highly after their exploits elsewhere then starting to rock up in Italy/Spain/Germany/France and of course most prominently, because of the league-wide wealth, the Premier League. 

For me, the problem lies not in CA. Or even the way CA is utilised CA is an aggregate based over the week to week performance of players, their bread and butter. Cup football is always different, and for me I think the solution lies perhaps in the emulation of the psychology within the game. 

Right now there are some things really difficult to create in the game. In domestic cups, anecdotally so take it with a massive pinch of salt, you will see more surprise results than in continental cups. Is there something at play with the importance of the competition? That's a question only someone from SI can answer. Of course, its only anecdotal evidence, it may just be the way its gone in my game.

There's so many elements that are tough to capture though, the reaction to a bad referee decision for example. It's not even consistent when looking at one player, some players can have their heads drop one game, but another be absolutely inspired. Despite fairly similar circumstances. Just because of the natural variance in how people feel day to day I guess. 

But for me this is a swampy-mess affecting many games, the level of AI needed to perhaps better encapsulate such things doesn't exist yet in games. 

- - -

The best thing would be players who see this happening and perhaps taking a closer look. If a team of underdogs in the first year or two who are the same squad/same manager as in real life approach the game against a big team completely differently to how they actually do then there's a bug or defect of some kind in there. A lot of players make the general complaints, but not many log the issue with a save of the game for SI to look at. This is likely where there's an enormous black hole in the knowledge of what is going on and what is causing it.

[Geordieboy52]

I am midway through season 3 and I was having a look at some player, Sterling's attributes are shocking - I know that he is not everyone's cup of tea but I was really surprised at how his spread looks.  Now, I don't know whether he'd been injured in game and not trained for a substantial time and this had led to the decline or not.

[saihtam]

55 minutes ago, Geordieboy52 said:

I am midway through season 3 and I was having a look at some player, Sterling's attributes are shocking - I know that he is not everyone's cup of tea but I was really surprised at how his spread looks.  Now, I don't know whether he'd been injured in game and not trained for a substantial time and this had led to the decline or not.

His starting stats already look bad, Also Hazard 12 finishing is also laughable.

[CEVR1996]

Alberto Moreno is rated as a top class fullback in the game. Romelu Lukaku has a pretty decent first touch and technique. He has 14 for technique while Marco Reus has 13...Cedric Soares is the fastest right back in the portuguese national team ahead of the likes of João Cancelo, Nelson Semedo and Ricardo Pereira, with 17 for acceleration and pace and Marco Asensio's finishing rating of 18 seems a bit over the top. These are a few examples that come to my mind.

[enigmatic]

5 hours ago, RBKalle said:

Clearly as a single researcher, and as a sensible person, you don't go rogue and start giving your favourite players 165CA or 17-20 attributes all across the board.

On the other hand, can you deny there must be a degree of "internal consistency" (I don't really know how to call it), where a whole team with players BELOW a certain level would get relegated with single-digits point tally, as the Top Clubs are simply too good?
Which, BTW, is what usually happens only a few seasons into the game when weaker and weaker sides get promoted and the Top Teams scoop all the available talents, opening the gap between title challengers and relegation candidates even more (due to AI's dodgy transfers and policies).

So, while I don't doubt your, or other researchers' integrity, I also can't help but feel the "balance" is kinda tipped in favour of the Top League(s), meaning ANY club in the same league as one of the Big Whales is bound to have a tiny boost just in order for them not to get "Derbied out" of the league.

And in turns, that affects the European cups too, as the slightly boosted side will make short work of clubs that IRL would probably gave them a tougher time, or even kick them out. (Motivation IRL can play a much bigger factor, but in FM we see completely one-sided ties that have become less and less common in reality).

E.g. I remember a CA of around 130 being the norm for relegation candidates in Serie A, with 140 being usually good enough for mid-table or even for rotation at EL-level. Those figures are an absolute luxury in, say, Scandinavia. Which implies your random SPAL or Leganés could be title contenders in Denmark or Norway. Then you get FC København eliminating Atalanta, Sarpsborg defeting Genk (Belgian league, I know, but still a FM mismatch) and Dudelange making it to the EL Group Stage and being surprisingly competitive against AC Milan.

BTW, it's not the researchers' fault, but maaaaybe the guidelines tend to overestimate entire leagues with the "more expensive = better" fallacy.

Pretty sure if Dudelange's players were actually on a level where they could compete consistently with AC Milan, someone would have tempted some of them away with bigger wages by now, perhaps not quite as efficiently as FM scouting can identify Serie A standard players from watching them trash poor teams in a dire domestic league, but it would it would happen anyway. Actually rating them as massively worse than Milan and a fair bit worse than Cluj and Legia is probably about right.

But there's a big higher CA players usually win unless an AI manager plays a tactic with horrible holes or a human manager uses an exploit factor in FM. Not least because players fairly represented as slightly slower and weaker than their opponents will be totally dominated because they can't make up for even fractional physical disparities by treating it like a cup final. But giant killings happen more often than in FM, for reasons other than relative ability differences not being big.

[rosesuburban]

Lukaku's finishing dropped from 18 in the beta to 15 in the full version. Someone has been watching United.

[Dagenham_Dave]

16 hours ago, Xeewaj Q. said:

 

 Don't watch League1 and have no idea how they do IRL. 

Your comments have now taken on an extra level of bizarre! 

[DownTheFrank]

Underrated : Diogo Dalot. 

Only on the beta, but his pace and acceleration have been nerfed. The kid is quite fast frok what ive seen from him in real life. 💁🏾‍♂️

[BadAss88]

On 04/11/2018 at 07:50, Xeewaj Q. said:

Overrated: Neymar, Mbappe.

TBH, almost every winger is overrated.

I found those low average ratings disturbing!

[RBKalle]

18 ore fa, enigmatic ha scritto:

Pretty sure if Dudelange's players were actually on a level where they could compete consistently with AC Milan, someone would have tempted some of them away with bigger wages by now, perhaps not quite as efficiently as FM scouting can identify Serie A standard players from watching them trash poor teams in a dire domestic league, but it would it would happen anyway. Actually rating them as massively worse than Milan and a fair bit worse than Cluj and Legia is probably about right.

I never said they could or should consistently compete with AC Milan or with Cluj and Legia either...

Just that IRL happened, while in FM it's not likely going to happen more than 1 in 1000 simulations of the EL Qualifiers, at least not without human input.

 

18 ore fa, enigmatic ha scritto:

But there's a big higher CA players usually win unless an AI manager plays a tactic with horrible holes or a human manager uses an exploit factor in FM. Not least because players fairly represented as slightly slower and weaker than their opponents will be totally dominated because they can't make up for even fractional physical disparities by treating it like a cup final. But giant killings happen more often than in FM, for reasons other than relative ability differences not being big.

And this is a bit of an issue.

It's more glaring when you get waterpolo-like scores in European Cups' QR, with minnows getting mercilessly slaughtered by every half-decent side from a half-decent country. But it also happens later in the competitions, with Top Clubs inevitably advancing in a rather predictable "higher CA wins" pattern.

I'd think hidden attributes like Important Matches or Pressure should play a bigger role and we'd definitely need a "Match of the Year" boost for smaller sides (or sides at a huge disadvantage) if CA is still the be all end all factor that decide a tie's outcome involving AI v AI.

[Nil14]

Kimmich. His passing, first touch, technique and vision are much better in real life. Closer to a Xavi type of player. He is been playing as a wing back because his football intelligence is above most of the other players and can adapt well to almost any position, but he's always been a midfield maestro as he is now in the german team.

Ziyech. Much better decision-making and also technical attributes than in the game.

Riqui Puig. 19.3 improved him a little, but has a lot more potential than tey've given him credit for.

Tadic. VERY underrated all around.

Marco Reus. I don't know if someone on SI has any problem with the Dortmund captain, but he's always been criminally underrated. He exhibits world class technique, first touch and vision in real life. Not in the game.

Thiago Alcantara. A player that keeps pushing his team to better themselves, controls every aspect of the game and has overcome multiple injuries and come back better than before, deserves much better determination, decisions and teamwork. 

 

[Filke]

every english player overrated, but we are used to it

[CFuller]

1 hour ago, Filke said:

every english player overrated, but we are used to it

That is your opinion, but I couldn't disagree with it more. It seems that many users (mostly non-English) just use this as a stick to constantly beat Sports Interactive with, because they happen to be based in England. Nobody has ever definitively proven that every English player is rated higher than they perhaps should be.

So... where's the evidence to back up your statement?

[herne79]

2 hours ago, Filke said:

every english player overrated, but we are used to it

So SI are biased towards English players, therefore lacking the integrity to provide us with a balanced game and have done so for a long period of time.  Is that really what you want to say?

[autohoratio]

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

So SI are biased towards English players, therefore lacking the integrity to provide us with a balanced game and have done so for a long period of time.  Is that really what you want to say?

I don't inherently think Filke was claiming willful bias and lack of integrity. I've seen the "English players in FM are overrated" opinion around for a very long time, and to an extent I think that it is indeed the case. English youngsters, from my limited experience of scouting, playing the game, viewing the databases etc, seem to be better players at the start of the game compared to e.g. German youngsters.

I don't think it's an intentional decision on SI's part, but more to do with disparities in how the researchers of different countries and different clubs have differing approaches in how they rate players, with English researchers giving slightly more favourable ratings (for what reason I don't know, perhaps it's to give the English youngsters more of a chance of getting into their club's first team given the EFL Championship being what I believe is a higher quality league than France's Ligue 2 or Spain's Segunda?).

Along similar lines I also saw an opinion that the researchers for Tromsø in Norway have a history of overrating their young players, but I have no first-hand experience or information in that regard. Of course I might be completely wrong in my take as well, but this is just my opinion formed from experience playing FM.

[Sunstrikuuu]

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

So SI are biased towards English players, therefore lacking the integrity to provide us with a balanced game and have done so for a long period of time.  Is that really what you want to say?

Alternately, English players are overrated in FM because English players are overrated in real life.   Alternately alternately, English players are overrated because English clubs are slightly overrated in facilities and produce better youth classes than some of them might be expected to.  In a typical save there might be twice as many English clubs as French, Spanish or German clubs, leading to more top-level English players over time.  There are explanations that don't involve you forcibly inserting words in another poster's mouth.

[herne79]

Complaints about supposed SI bias in favour of English players has long been a thing.  Complaints from SI Researchers about this supposed bias and therefore questions their integrity - something they take very seriously - has also long been a thing.  So when a sarcastic post pops up on this subject, it can draw attention.

So no "trying to force words into someone", just a touchy subject that has thin ice.

[Carambau]

I always thought the italian players were overrated, but alas... let´s just forget this.

[_mxrky]

Lewis cook is ridiculously overrated. World class in the 2nd season already when I bought him.

Nicholas pepe is underrated on this game.