Jump to content

[England EFL Championship] Data Issues


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Kadzidlo said:

Many players peak later in their careers, for a midfielder that might be late 20's (Rashford would probably peak around 26/27 as his game is built on pace) , so if he's 23 he still could have 6/7 years to reach his set PA. a move to a bigger club, in the Prem at the end of this season,  a few seasons on a winning team in the prem and he could end up being an England regular, he could also stay with Bournemouth, get relegated and be in League one in 2 years time, like Rodwell. So is it possible he could still reach that PA  over the next 5-6 years, that's question I think you need to be asking. and then put forward your reason as to why he could/could not reach it. 

 

My point referencing Rashford is, clearly there is still license for researchers to reduce a young player's PA if they see fit - contrary to what I'd been told previously. 

List the top PA midfielders in their early-mid 20s, as I have done in my original post in this thread, and tell me Lewis Cook doesn't stand out as the anomaly? It isn't even a good PL or international PA. It's a world class PA. At that level, the burden of proof should be 'what has he done to deserve it?' not 'why should it be lowered?'.

But let's look at 'why should it be lowered?' anyway: 

-  His injury record is exaggerated as if he is in a permanent state of 'just back from...'. In reality he was fit for the entirety of the 19/20 season and proved nothing more than an average player in a key position for a side that got relegated. Onto this season: 

- Whoscored average rating of 6.87 is 84th for players in The Championship. 1 goal and 1 assist in 27 appearances, and 86th in The Championship for key passes per game. Maybe these aren't fair metrics to judge him by, so let's look at if he offers something else that keeps Bournemouth ticking? Stats below show his Championship rankings for 20/21 season: 

Pass completion %: 31st
Interceptions: 35th
Tackles: 124th
Dribbling: 24th

If he was a potentially world class midfield conductor, destroyer, or playmaker, surely that would be borne out in at least some of the statistics, or a combination of? But in all cases there are midfielders of a similar age or younger with better stats, and far inferior PAs in-game. 

So is there some intangible factor that demonstrates world class potential which can't be seen in the stats? Given that the closest he's been linked to a top club in recent times is a £9m rumour to Southamption last month, it wouldn't seem so. One Bournemouth fan on their forum suggested that to sell him for that, and replace him on a free with Jack Wilshere or Barry Bannan would be good business. 

When another fan suggested Cook was a shadow of the player he used to be, one reply stated 'Cook has been a shadow of himself? He hasn't created a shadow since he's been here. Really should up his game this season, but he's been awful'. Even his own fans don't see this supposed potential. 

I can't think of any player in FM versions, current or past, who amid mediocrity has kept such a high fixed PA. 

If anyone, especially the Bournemouth researcher, can answer my question of 'what has he done to deserve it?' I'd be very interested to hear it. 

 

Edited by Deano565
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The guidance is that we do not reduce a players PA, simply because they haven't reached it/improved in a period of time. 

His PA doesn't need to be reduced just because he's playing poorly and ultimately, researchers aren't at your beck and call to justify ratings. If you dislike it you're always free to change it with the pre-game editor. 

The fact that other players have had PA reductions has absolutely zero bearing on Lewis Cook because the guidance we have about not reducing players potential doesn't mean reducing PA's is banned, it's a guidance on a change in approach from what we've had in the past. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the Bournemouth researcher so it's not me you need to be trying to convince that his PA is too high. I was just advising on how the PA works. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, santy001 said:

The guidance is that we do not reduce a players PA, simply because they haven't reached it/improved in a period of time. 

His PA doesn't need to be reduced just because he's playing poorly and ultimately, researchers aren't at your beck and call to justify ratings. If you dislike it you're always free to change it with the pre-game editor. 

The fact that other players have had PA reductions has absolutely zero bearing on Lewis Cook because the guidance we have about not reducing players potential doesn't mean reducing PA's is banned, it's a guidance on a change in approach from what we've had in the past. 

The 'use the editor' line can be wheeled out for anything - we may as well close the data feedback forum to anything other than incorrect dates of birth or typo'd names in that case. I'm a purist and can never get into a game if I've tampered with the original data in any way. It feels like cheating. 

What doesn't feel like cheating though is trying to have a debate with those who set the data, and either understand their justification, or see if they come round to my way of thinking, which is that Lewis Cook doesn't have the same potential as Fernandes, Grealish, Rice or Neves. Both the stats and the consensus of those watching him each week paint a picture of a fairly average player, yet in-game I'll see him develop into a World Class midfielder playing for Liverpool or Man City. If he was 28 at the start of the game, fine, I know he'll never reach it, but he's 23 and this is how it pans out. 

Something is amiss and nobody seems able/willing to explain why, other than 'guidance' which other researchers have already seen fit to bend and split hairs over. I just bring up Cook, as I did in November, because the discrepancy is so vast. 

Nobody has to give an answer, but that doesn't mean I can't ask the question if the Bournemouth researcher feels so inclined. 

 

Edited by Deano565
Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point surely the answer becomes obvious in its own right though @Deano565 - those involved with the research simply do not agree with your position. Again, our guidance has changed, looking back at previous FM's is almost meaningless because we used to do things a different way. However, the development system of the game has reached a point where we don't need to re-assess a players potential from that point in his career. It very much used to be the case that we would assess a players potential along the lines of "As a 29 year old playing at X level, what can he realistically potentially achieve now?" and that simply isn't the case anymore. We look at players and will initially still give the -X PA for a while and then transition to a solid number. At that point generally we would look to leave that number in place.

Here's the guidance, from our researcher perspective, on PA:

there is a new way of looking at Potential Ability:
If the player is past what might be considered the peak of his ability, the PA should not be adjusted downwards to reflect the level of his peak ability (if that peak Current Ability value happens to be lower than his PA value). Care should be taken when reviewing a player’s PA, which should be adjusted only if it is thought that the value currently in place is erroneous.

- - -

If a player is consistently developing and always hitting their PA at the age of 23 when there's a big gap between PA & CA then that's probably more of an issue to be investigated from a bug perspective. 

You can raise points but the original post comes back to how posts should be made to influence change. What I'm advising is that even though you haven't met those requirements, the reasons you're providing are in stark contradiction to what we're advised to do by the games developers and head researchers. Yes other players may have had their PA's revised up or down, and there's someone who discusses that with the relevant researcher and signs off on that change. That a player hasn't lived up to their potential isn't a reason to disregard and in turn decrease that potential.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Santy has explained the recently-changed approach to not reducing PA. The high PA is kept to enable the game AI to understand the highest potential he had, even if it is unlikely he will now reach it. 

Two serious injuries, to an ankle and knee, have been a major factor in him not fulfilling his clear potential.

Cook is very unlikely to reach that PA in any savegame, so it's a moot point anyway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil Warnock & Mick McCarthy definitely need a data boost both were gone in my save before February with both Middlesbrough & Cardiff in the bottom half of the championship which isn't realistic. They both look likely to finish in the top 8.

Harry Redknapp should also be on Bournemouth coaching staff as a coach as he is helping Woodgate.

 

Championship table.jpg

Edited by Mr Ford 1877
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mr Ford 1877 said:

Neil Warnock & Mick McCarthy definitely need a data boost both were gone in my save before February with both Middlesbrough & Cardiff in the bottom half of the championship which isn't realistic. They both look likely to finish in the top 8.

Harry Redknapp should also be on Bournemouth coaching staff as a coach as he is helping Woodgate.

 

Championship table.jpg

 

There's a lot in that table that isn't how the real life season has played out so far. But remember it's only one save, you'd need a much bigger data set to prove your point. 

 

Did you start with the first transfer window enabled? That can make a big difference to how saves play out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, darren1983 said:

Brendan MacFarlane (ID:29224796) Brentford scout. He is the clubs lead scout in France but on his world knowledge page in game he has no knowledge of France. 

https://b2b.getemail.io/brendan-macfarlane-brentford-football-club-person-company-34495325-3953825.html

I'm actually not sure if we can assign knowledge to a non-player with no nationality/playing experience linking them to a country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, swansongs said:

I'm actually not sure if we can assign knowledge to a non-player with no nationality/playing experience linking them to a country.

Ah fair enough then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, darren1983 said:

Ah fair enough then. 

He should probably be given a high Adaptability rating given his role in a foreign country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansongs said:

I'm actually not sure if we can assign knowledge to a non-player with no nationality/playing experience linking them to a country.

He has been set as both scouting in France and having scouting knowledge in France, we can't assign a figure for how much/little knowledge so I guess the game randomises it. However it shouldn't be coming up as 0 or no knowledge when the game starts so I'd suggest reporting this as a bug @darren1983

Edited by Brentford Alan
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Brentford Alan said:

He has been set as both scouting in France and having scouting knowledge in France, we can't assign a figure for how much/little knowledge so I guess the game randomises it. However it shouldn't be coming up as 0 or no knowledge when the game starts so I'd suggest reporting this as a bug @darren1983

I see the menu now. Not one I've had to use before.

edit: On a quick start Brentford save he's down as England & Scotland 100%, Ireland 67%, with a long-term career preference to scout in France but no familiarity.

Edited by swansongs
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, swansongs said:

I see the menu now. Not one I've had to use before.

edit: On a quick start Brentford save he's down as England & Scotland 100%, Ireland 67%, with a long-term career preference to scout in France but no familiarity.

Want me to still report it then? I can do it next time I'm on the PC. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, darren1983 said:

Brendan MacFarlane (ID:29224796) Brentford scout. He is the clubs lead scout in France but on his world knowledge page in game he has no knowledge of France. 

https://b2b.getemail.io/brendan-macfarlane-brentford-football-club-person-company-34495325-3953825.html

Knowledge has been assigned to him in the database.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mr Ford 1877 said:

Neil Warnock & Mick McCarthy definitely need a data boost both were gone in my save before February with both Middlesbrough & Cardiff in the bottom half of the championship which isn't realistic. They both look likely to finish in the top 8.

Harry Redknapp should also be on Bournemouth coaching staff as a coach as he is helping Woodgate.

 

Championship table.jpg

Based on this table, Birmingham City need every player dropped by around 50 CA points as we are more than useless in real life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/02/2021 at 06:45, Dean Gripton said:

Santy has explained the recently-changed approach to not reducing PA. The high PA is kept to enable the game AI to understand the highest potential he had, even if it is unlikely he will now reach it. 

Two serious injuries, to an ankle and knee, have been a major factor in him not fulfilling his clear potential.

Cook is very unlikely to reach that PA in any savegame, so it's a moot point anyway.

 

Thanks again Dean, so how do I then reconcile the issue of Cook and Worrall both being 23 year olds - with CA and PA of 130/169 and 122/142 respectively.  If Cook isn't likely to reach his potential does that mean Worrall isn't likely to as well?   What dictates the likelihood of reaching the database PA?  Obviously if the direction is to just change the database ourselves, it would help to know how we can do this in the most realistic way possible/

Edited by ForestStoney
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/02/2021 at 05:08, santy001 said:

At some point surely the answer becomes obvious in its own right though @Deano565 - those involved with the research simply do not agree with your position. Again, our guidance has changed, looking back at previous FM's is almost meaningless because we used to do things a different way. However, the development system of the game has reached a point where we don't need to re-assess a players potential from that point in his career. It very much used to be the case that we would assess a players potential along the lines of "As a 29 year old playing at X level, what can he realistically potentially achieve now?" and that simply isn't the case anymore. We look at players and will initially still give the -X PA for a while and then transition to a solid number. At that point generally we would look to leave that number in place.

Here's the guidance, from our researcher perspective, on PA:

there is a new way of looking at Potential Ability:
If the player is past what might be considered the peak of his ability, the PA should not be adjusted downwards to reflect the level of his peak ability (if that peak Current Ability value happens to be lower than his PA value). Care should be taken when reviewing a player’s PA, which should be adjusted only if it is thought that the value currently in place is erroneous.

- - -

If a player is consistently developing and always hitting their PA at the age of 23 when there's a big gap between PA & CA then that's probably more of an issue to be investigated from a bug perspective. 

You can raise points but the original post comes back to how posts should be made to influence change. What I'm advising is that even though you haven't met those requirements, the reasons you're providing are in stark contradiction to what we're advised to do by the games developers and head researchers. Yes other players may have had their PA's revised up or down, and there's someone who discusses that with the relevant researcher and signs off on that change. That a player hasn't lived up to their potential isn't a reason to disregard and in turn decrease that potential.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify some issues Santy!  My issue with research is demonstrated by the fact that there have been a number of changes to Stoke's players since the last update - Bursik, Campbell, Collins et cetera.  I'm a passionate Forest and there have been almost no changes to our database.  Im happy to cop a researcher having a different view on a player, but when there are next to no changes done after eight month's of season time and there has been huge flux in the team's performance and player performance in that time, it just doesn't make sense.  The issue is not that the ratings are wrong, just that they don't seem to be being scrutinised, so they aren't, seemingly, up to date.  Our best player, captain and only player being targeted by EPL clubs and the only player Forest fans dread losing, is only regarded in the database as the third best player in his position at the club and a lesser player than our 32yo back up left back.  I don't see how that is possibly not a problem?   Notwithstanding numerous other over-rated and under-rated players (if you go by the manager's hierarchy) and other oddities, that have made many of us Forest fans question whether our games and under 23 and under 18 games are actually being watched and appraised by FM staff.

Edited by ForestStoney
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ForestStoney said:

Thanks again Dean, so how do I then reconcile the issue of Cook and Worrall both being 23 year olds - with CA and PA of 130/169 and 122/142 respectively.  If Cook isn't likely to reach his potential does that mean Worrall isn't likely to as well?   What dictates the likelihood of reaching the database PA?  Obviously if the direction is to just change the database ourselves, it would help to know how we can do this in the most realistic way possible/

Worrall has every chance of reaching that 142 and becoming an established Premier League defender that rating would imply, so there is nothing to reconcile there. He'll play very well for you in your FM save, if managed properly.

Absolutely everything that happens to him in your save helps dictate the likelihood of him reaching that PA! His (hidden) mental attributes are good so that will help, but of course it's not a guarantee because he could do his knee in during the first match, etc.

The researcher watches all possible games (clearly not all U18s and U23s are as easy to watch this season as they were in previous seasons), and was pressed to make changes, as every researcher was. He's going to have another look over the weekend. That doesn't mean he'll agree with you, and why should it! But he will look.

Bong had not played enough games to be downgraded. (It's interesting how your recent defensive improvement has come along with him in the team though). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Catching up with a few things in this thread, given the interest (once again), in my decision making regarding certain Forest players.. 

Once I get back from work, and have a chance to reply, I will go into depth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dean Gripton said:

Bong had not played enough games to be downgraded. (It's interesting how your recent defensive improvement has come along with him in the team though). 

Not sure anyone who has been watching would say that Bong has been a primary influence in that, even though he is playing OK.   We've had a pretty soft run of games and made some very good transfers in recent times that have improved the overall team  - Garner is holding well in midfield, Krovinovic and Murray have improved ball control in their different ways - and our goalkeeper, last years championship keeper of the year, is back in good form and somewhere near, though not all the way near his best.   All these factors have  played a part, but I have not read in any Forest forum or article, Bong being credited for making any sort of monumental difference to the team, some have praised his crossing, but most generally thing he is average at best. .

Using your logic,  though, you could do an analysis of Forest's record with Worrall in the team this year and without and you would probably draw a similar conclusion.  I haven't done the maths but I'm sure we are much higher in the table if only the games he has played counted, though don't quote me on that.   

But that's fine, if Bong is better than Worrall, then I am way off the mark and need to revisit whether I know anything about the game.  Again I'm not saying Worrall's 122/142 is necessarily incorrect, just his standing amongst his Forest team-mates is wide of the mark.

Cheers,

COYR

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/02/2021 at 11:43, Jogo Bonito said:

I'm sure it wasn't intentional and has slipped through somehow @Kadzidlo?

Sorry to interrupt this engaging chat, but just an update on this Omar Richards story. Looking more likely to happen but still not officially confirmed so should not be in there on 21.3. One to keep an eye on for the imminent update though. If announced by then the future transfer is one to keep in - if not, it should really come out unless the Reading researcher is aware of something factual (which may be the case).

https://www.bavarianfootballworks.com/2021/2/26/22302814/bayern-munich-transfer-news-omar-richards-reading-championship-david-alaba-hansi-flick-rumor-davies

Cheers. As you were ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, thomasreidsj said:

On the game Bristol City U23s manager Alex Ball has his time at the club ended in 2020. He is still the manager in the game but his history says it ended 2020

This is nothing to do with the data, nor is your post about Russell Martin.

Neither has an end date for their current job set in the database. Therefore, your bug is nothing to do with the database.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dean Gripton said:

This is nothing to do with the data, nor is your post about Russell Martin.

Neither has an end date for their current job set in the database. Therefore, your bug is nothing to do with the database.

Explain this then?

9ec8503d6a1ae17d7b24d6baa3c653ae.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thomasreidsj said:

Explain this then?

9ec8503d6a1ae17d7b24d6baa3c653ae.png

In the editor looks like there is a duplicate/two managerial entries for Martin, maybe one of them is being counted as having ended and causing the end date for his tenure in the history section.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/02/2021 at 10:27, robterrace said:

Catching up with a few things in this thread, given the interest (once again), in my decision making regarding certain Forest players.. 

Once I get back from work, and have a chance to reply, I will go into depth.

thanks Rob, looking forward to it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a wild stab in the dark, but could it be caused by Russell Martin having a date of 30/06/20 as his leaving MK Dons date in his player history instead of 03/11/19 which is marked as his retirement date?

 

If you look on this screenshot it seems to be picking that up as a leave managerial job date;

 

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/02/2021 at 07:02, Jogo Bonito said:

Sorry to interrupt this engaging chat, but just an update on this Omar Richards story. Looking more likely to happen but still not officially confirmed so should not be in there on 21.3. One to keep an eye on for the imminent update though. If announced by then the future transfer is one to keep in - if not, it should really come out unless the Reading researcher is aware of something factual (which may be the case).

https://www.bavarianfootballworks.com/2021/2/26/22302814/bayern-munich-transfer-news-omar-richards-reading-championship-david-alaba-hansi-flick-rumor-davies

Cheers. As you were ;)

unless the Reading researcher is aware of something factual (which may be the case). - That is correct.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kadzidlo said:

unless the Reading researcher is aware of something factual (which may be the case). - That is correct.  

Fair enough. Disappointing news if it's factual, rather than just 'expected'. When might this be announced officially do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jogo Bonito said:

Fair enough. Disappointing news if it's factual, rather than just 'expected'. When might this be announced officially do you think?

Will be released to press in next few days. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Kadzidlo said:

Will be released to press in next few days. 

Thanks for the information, disappointing on all fronts but good luck to him. Also apologies, it would now be understandable why it was put in 'early' if you knew this was done but just being kept quiet.  Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/02/2021 at 10:08, Dean Gripton said:

Worrall has every chance of reaching that 142 and becoming an established Premier League defender that rating would imply, so there is nothing to reconcile there. He'll play very well for you in your FM save, if managed properly.

Absolutely everything that happens to him in your save helps dictate the likelihood of him reaching that PA! His (hidden) mental attributes are good so that will help, but of course it's not a guarantee because he could do his knee in during the first match, etc.

The researcher watches all possible games (clearly not all U18s and U23s are as easy to watch this season as they were in previous seasons), and was pressed to make changes, as every researcher was. He's going to have another look over the weekend. That doesn't mean he'll agree with you, and why should it! But he will look.

Bong had not played enough games to be downgraded. (It's interesting how your recent defensive improvement has come along with him in the team though). 

What I meant by 'reconcile'  was how do we reconcile your comments that Cook wont reach his PA and Worrall will.  What is the reasoning behind that projection?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ForestStoney said:

What I meant by 'reconcile'  was how do we reconcile your comments that Cook wont reach his PA and Worrall will.  What is the reasoning behind that projection?

Because Cook's progress was halted by his injuries and his PA is so much higher than his CA. So, even if Cook does improve, which is very possible, he'll not improve enough to reach that PA. Worrall's CA/PA gap is lower, so it is much more likely he will reach it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Sorry if this is in the wrong section

 

Sam Pearson (and his twin brother Callum) have their birthday wrong. The game has 25/10/2001. When it's actually 26/10/2001. Proof: https://www.bcfc.co.uk/teams/first-team-squad/28-sam-pearson/

 

Owura Edwards is labelled as Welsh in game. He is in fact English. Proof: https://www.bcfc.co.uk/teams/first-team-squad/35-owura-edwards/

 

(Sorry again if I am putting this in the wrong place)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jogo Bonito said:

Thanks for the information, disappointing on all fronts but good luck to him. Also apologies, it would now be understandable why it was put in 'early' if you knew this was done but just being kept quiet.  Cheers.

Here you go, from Sky Sports.

Not disappointing for him, Why would he want to stay at Reading when he can go to Bayern. Wages look like around £30/35k per week (he told Reading they needed to offer £35K a week for him to consider staying, and hence his in and out of 1st team over the past few weeks) Shame our board are not ensuring young players have at least 2 years left on contracts. esp when they are only on a couple of grand a week. 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11890/12232800/transfer-news-omar-richards-to-join-bayern-munich-this-summer-after-reaching-pre-contract-agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kadzidlo said:

Here you go, from Sky Sports.

Not disappointing for him, Why would he want to stay at Reading when he can go to Bayern. Wages look like around £30/35k per week (he told Reading they needed to offer £35K a week for him to consider staying, and hence his in and out of 1st team over the past few weeks) Shame our board are not ensuring young players have at least 2 years left on contracts. esp when they are only on a couple of grand a week. 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11890/12232800/transfer-news-omar-richards-to-join-bayern-munich-this-summer-after-reaching-pre-contract-agreement

Sorry I mean disappointing for the club and fans. Definitely not for him, a great opportunity indeed. Agree the board have not played a blinder there have they! Too little too late, if they had offered circa £15k-£20k at the start of the season maybe he would have signed, but all irrelevant now. I feel Olise might end up going the same way and that would be another massive fail.

Respect for the inside track and info. You can understand why it was flagged as it hadn't been officially announced and we are always being told it's not fact until official! Having worked in the local media on RFC matters myself for six years in the (very) distant past, I did start to think you may have private intel, hence my follow up post saying that might be the case. Anyway, well done, good job :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think even £10k a week at start of season would have kept him. We'd removed his competition for left back with Blackett and Obita leaving, freeing up well over £10K i'd imagine. They should have put him on a 2 year deal, £10k a week with an extension if he plays x amount of games to 3 years. Then he's ours till summer of 2023.

They seem too keen to pay bigger name players £20k a week on a long contract, yet won't keep prospects on £2/3K a week for more than 1 year it would seem. 

Wonder what our team would be like if we'd put 18/19 year olds on 4 year deals. The likes of Jules, Fosu, Stacy, etc might have still been with us and even ikpeazu.

 

Edited by Kadzidlo
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kadzidlo said:

I think even £10k a week at start of season would have kept him. We'd removed his competition for left back with Blackett and Obita leaving, freeing up well over £10K i'd imagine. They should have put him on a 2 year deal, £10k a week with an extension if he plays x amount of games to 3 years. Then he's ours till summer of 2023.

They seem too keen to pay bigger name players £20k a week on a long contract, yet won't keep prospects on £2/3K a week for more than 1 year it would seem. 

Wonder what our team would be like if we'd put 18/19 year olds on 4 year deals. The likes of Jules, Fosu, Stacy, etc might have still been with us and even ikpeazu.

 

Indeed, especially agree on the bit in bold. It was a massive show of faith in the summer when we went from 3 to 1, but he has developed extremely well this season and your structured idea probably would have suited all including him. The lack of a DOF/Sports Director/Technical Director after Bowen hasn't helped either in my opinion.

Regarding the others, yes and no. Not every talented young player will continue an upward path (e.g. Kuhl, Kelly) so it's all about judgment and decision making. We lost out on a few like Stacey and Dickie (Cooper I felt should have been kept too, but he wasn't ideal for Stam tactics of sideways passing for no reason) but you have to be sensible on all contracts - youngsters and seniors.

Still, no denying this is a massive fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Started a save as Northampton Town and have noticed:

David Kelly (loan manager/coach) has long left the club

Pablo Garcia (Fitness Coach) has joined Birmingham City

Edited by ForestStoney
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/02/2021 at 10:27, robterrace said:

Catching up with a few things in this thread, given the interest (once again), in my decision making regarding certain Forest players.. 

Once I get back from work, and have a chance to reply, I will go into depth.

hey mate, any progress on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ForestStoney said:

hey mate, any progress on this?

Yes.

This progress is called work.

I've spoken to Dean about certain issues. 

I'm not explaining any further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, robterrace said:

Yes.

This progress is called work.

I've spoken to Dean about certain issues. 

I'm not explaining any further.

Ah no worries, sorry thought you suggested earlier you would be going into detail on some of your analysis.

Cheers.

COYR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...