Confused about Zealand video (regarding player development and current ability)

[Four3Three]

I was watching a zealand video about 10 myths about fm or something like that.  

I was confused about something he said in the video which was that players who start training to learn a new position and players who start training to learn how to develop their weaker foot cut into their "current ability" by doing so.  This led me to believe that while players are doing this sort of training, they are not quite as good as they would be otherwise.  

But this doesn't really make sense to me and makes me feel like I misunderstood him.  I think that what he possibly meant to say was that this type of training could cut into the players potential ability.  He even said something along the lines of "training the weaker foot will hinder their overall development." 

Can anyone interpret what he was saying for me?  

[ElJuanvito]

Training a player in a new position and/or weaker foot costs CA points. You can quickly see it if you have the editor, take a player and upgrade his weaker foot or an unfamiliar position to 20, and his recommended current ability will go up (meaning, his current set of attributes/positions/footedness is more costly, so to speak).

 

I think some retrainings cost less than others, for example training an AML to be an ML costs relatively little.

[herne79]

56 minutes ago, Four3Three said:

He even said something along the lines of "training the weaker foot will hinder their overall development." 

 

46 minutes ago, ElJuanvito said:

Training a player in a new position and/or weaker foot costs CA points. You can quickly see it if you have the editor, take a player and upgrade his weaker foot or an unfamiliar position to 20, and his recommended current ability will go up (meaning, his current set of attributes/positions/footedness is more costly, so to speak).

I'm afraid that simply isn't true from a gameplay perspective, so it's good you question what's in videos.

Whilst it is true that if we use an editor to change a player's weak foot from "Very Weak" to "Very Strong" it can have a relatively large impact on overall ability, in reality it simply doesn't work that way. 

In game - without using an editor -  a player cannot develop their weaker foot beyond "Reasonable".  Players cannot have a "Strong" or "Very Strong" weaker foot unless either a Researcher allocates it or a newgen is "born" with it.

So in practice a player can only improve a Weak or Very Weak foot up to Reasonable.  Because of that the impact on current ability is minimal.  A larger impact is probably felt on the pitch where a player becomes a little better at using the ball and doesn't have to keep moving the ball to his stronger foot.  Far from hindering their development, it can actually make the player better.

[Four3Three]

So it doesn't lower their ceiling at all then?  Maybe it "morphs" their ceiling and they end up becoming a bit of a different player than before?

[Dotsworthy]

2 hours ago, Four3Three said:

So it doesn't lower their ceiling at all then?  Maybe it "morphs" their ceiling and they end up becoming a bit of a different player than before?

It would depend on what you would define as a ceiling. If you mean attributes then there is a difference in the ceiling between two players with the same PA depending on their two footedness/positional ability, so a one footed ST will likely have a small advantage in attributes compared to at AMRLC/ST with two good feet.

That said, I don't think it has much of an actual impact on the game.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Dotsworthy

[fc.cadoni]

@CAE82 explains it here.

Not all positions having the same weighting of attributes.

Regarding player performance, CA does not tell the whole story of a player, because hidden attributes like Pressure, Professionalism; directly have an impact - despite being cost free CA points.

[CAE82]

@Four3Three You're right.

Don't get caught up on CA. Attributes are king. CA is essentially just an 'average' of attribute values (that depends on their position as Cadoni said).

The Match Engine relies on attribute values, not CA. Training and development improves attributes. As a result, CA increases.

PA effectively acts as a cap on CA.

Suppose you have a Striker with CA of 150 and a PA of 170. So he has 20 'CA points' to develop. He has Finishing of 15 and Pace of 15. You may train his Finishing up to 18 which 'uses up' his CA points and so he is left at 18/15 for Finishing/Pace. Similarly, you may instead decide to train his Quickness and he is left at 15/17 for Finishing/Pace. Either way his CA may end up at his PA and so no further development is possible.

[CAE82]

p.s. Weaker Foot is just another 1-20 attribute, exactly as Finishing is for example. Imagine a SC has 17 for Finishing, 10 for weaker foot, 13 for Tackling and 157CA. Another SC may have 157 CA, with 17 for Finishing, 16 for Weaker Foot and 1 for Tackling. Who would you rather have?

p.p.s. It's good that you question YouTubers! Just like the 24/7 football media they often talk rubbish in the relentless pursuit of hits/likes/views.

[toolkit68]

This entire problem is based on players doing thee wrong thing here and mixing things that are invisible for a reason and the visible and controllable stuff with each other.

Potential ability is found twice - as something the player can see in the regular interface and a number value in the database. These two are not the same!!!!

As to the problem at hand: The visual engine is your friend here and not someone's videos. A player that can use both feet to a certain degree is length more valuable in terms of play than one with just a single strong one. This can be seen extremely for strikers , offensive midfielders and so on. Certain methods like switching flank position of your wingers is impossible unless players have decent feet for both sides. Players listed as good or very good but being 2-footed are in general better performing certain tasks on the pitch than excellent rated players with only a single strong foot. I listed strikers as extreme example for this for a reason as I continously see strikers with only 1 strong foot being hampered in getting the ball into the box when pressed by defenders. The ones with two decent - strong feet show in the engine they cope a lot better with the same situations as they had 100 percent more options where to turn to whereas the one-footed ones can only turn to one side and often get blocked that way.

Edited September 29, 2023 by toolkit68

[enigmatic]

20 hours ago, Four3Three said:

So it doesn't lower their ceiling at all then?  Maybe it "morphs" their ceiling and they end up becoming a bit of a different player than before?

Their ceiling is the same as before

A different player than before is a good way of putting it.

In a lot of cases I'd rather have a player that can use their weaker foot a little bit more than a handful of attribute points, possibly not on attributes they actually use

[Scotty Walds]

Imagine a striker that can shoot with both feet - you're better off having someone with Finishing 15 (for both feet) than another striker who can only shoot with one foot but has Finishing 20. He's more likely to do better across multiple games.

An IRL example is Anthony - how often does he use his right foot to cross? Very little. Even if his crossing attribute is in the high teens, it's more effective (in general) to have someone with a lower crossing attribute, but can cross (nearly) equally well with both feet.

[FlorianAlbert9]

Il 28/9/2023 in 23:32 , CAE82 ha scritto:

p.s. Weaker Foot is just another 1-20 attribute, exactly as Finishing is for example. Imagine a SC has 17 for Finishing, 10 for weaker foot, 13 for Tackling and 157CA. Another SC may have 157 CA, with 17 for Finishing, 16 for Weaker Foot and 1 for Tackling.

Well, tackling for a striker has a very low impact in CA, so that 6 point more in weaker foot meaning a lower attributes in one or more important attributes for the role (eg. The one with 10 could have a better pace). 
 

so depends.  
 

 

[diLLa88]

On 29/09/2023 at 17:17, Scotty Walds said:

Imagine a striker that can shoot with both feet - you're better off having someone with Finishing 15 (for both feet) than another striker who can only shoot with one foot but has Finishing 20. He's more likely to do better across multiple games.

An IRL example is Anthony - how often does he use his right foot to cross? Very little. Even if his crossing attribute is in the high teens, it's more effective (in general) to have someone with a lower crossing attribute, but can cross (nearly) equally well with both feet.

Yet, you also have players like Robben who would have insane attributes, but is purely left footed. Different situations require different player profiles. One is not always better than the other in all circumstances.