At what age can you still expect a young player to eventually improve his current ability by at least 0.5 star?

[danej]

Premises:

1. I don’t want to optimize training related player development. I leave training to the staff. This is one of many restrictions that I prefer to use in order to avoid the game being to easy and thus, for me, too boring. So please bear this in mind when you respond.
2. Don’t consider personality. I am aware that the personality of a player is a huge factor regarding the extent to which a player reaches his potential. However, what I am curious about is what you can expect on average, for the whole lot of young players, for the «random/average» player. Like an average of everyone at a given age, including players with good/neutral/bad personalities.

Untill recently I thought that a player could still be expected to eventually improve by 0.5 star CA or more if he was 22 y/o or younger.

But now I suspect that this is too optimistic and just wrong (given the mentioned sub optimal AI-level training regime). I often, perhaps usually, see that players aged 22 or even a bit younger, don’t develop much (probably in part due to my mentioned restrictions).

Right now I am thinking that the age when future improvement of at least 0.5 star CA is less than 50% likely (given my restrictions) is somewhere between 19-21 years. Probably around 20-21. I feel like often, probably more than 50% of the time, players older than perhaps 20-21 don’t really develop a lot.

Anyway, any input appreciated. I still feel like I have limited experience regarding this. I am sure that there are many guys out there who have much more experience regarding this, have studied this more extensively, have a much better feel than I do regarding what should be to maximum age to buy a player for you to still expect him to grow his CA by least 0.5 star in the future.

[Cloud9]

1 hour ago, danej said:

Premises:

1. I don’t want to optimize training related player development. I leave training to the staff. This is one of many restrictions that I prefer to use in order to avoid the game being to easy and thus, for me, too boring. So please bear this in mind when you respond.
2. Don’t consider personality. I am aware that the personality of a player is a huge factor regarding the extent to which a player reaches his potential. However, what I am curious about is what you can expect on average, for the whole lot of young players, for the «random/average» player. Like an average of everyone at a given age, including players with good/neutral/bad personalities.

Untill recently I thought that a player could still be expected to eventually improve by 0.5 star CA or more if he was 22 y/o or younger.

But now I suspect that this is too optimistic and just wrong (given the mentioned sub optimal AI-level training regime). I often, perhaps usually, see that players aged 22 or even a bit younger, don’t develop much (probably in part due to my mentioned restrictions).

Right now I am thinking that the age when future improvement of at least 0.5 star CA is less than 50% likely (given my restrictions) is somewhere between 19-21 years. Probably around 20-21. I feel like often, probably more than 50% of the time, players older than perhaps 20-21 don’t really develop a lot.

Anyway, any input appreciated. I still feel like I have limited experience regarding this. I am sure that there are many guys out there who have much more experience regarding this, have studied this more extensively, have a much better feel than I do regarding what should be to maximum age to buy a player for you to still expect him to grow his CA by least 0.5 star in the future.

The stars are misleading you. They're based on performance (fluxuating), value to squad (playable positions, being English in England), and the overall strength of your squad. How many stars you see a player gain depends not only on how much he improves, but also how your squad changes. 

It's also impossible to ignore personality when considering this question. A player with the perfect cocktail of ambition, determination, and professionalism will develop better as he ages, a player without these skills really needs to hit the ground running if he's to come close to his potential. There are lots of high potential bad personality footballers who won't come anywhere near reaching their potential regardless of if they're 18 or 25. Players also have different development curves in their careers. The more you can tailor training, game time/success, and squad environment to the individual, the more development you can expect to see. That being said I would value 18-20 highly in the development of any player. Be wary of overplaying young players in your attempts to develop them.

When judging a young player, look at what he can do now. He could improve significantly, but if he's not the mold of player you're looking for it's best to move him on. Your coaches can also just be wrong about their assessment of him. Chasing CA/PA is a classic blunder on FM. 

Edited January 30 by Cloud9

[danej]

1 hour ago, Cloud9 said:

The stars are misleading you. They're based on performance (fluxuating), value to squad (playable positions, being English in England), and the overall strength of your squad. How many stars you see a player gain depends not only on how much he improves, but also how your squad changes. 

You are right. I was actually aware of it before, but I phrased my OP badly, didn't think of this. I guess what I meant more specifically is: When can a young player be expected to improve significantly? For example judged on the coach report - if a player now has Championship level CA, what should be his maximum age in order to expect that he will most likely reach Premier League level eventually.

By the way, I also ask because I like to develop youngsters by giving them game time. So I will often prefer starting a youngster to an older player, even efter the youngster currently is 0.5 weaker than the older player in the given position. My experience is that it is a good long term investment. But then again, age is probably a factor. Such an approach is probably usually sensible with, say an 18 og 20 yo. But perhaps less sensible with a 22 yo who might now be far from his peak.

[danej]

1 hour ago, Cloud9 said:

That being said I would value 18-20 highly in the development of any player. Be wary of overplaying young players in your attempts to develop them.

Can you elaborate on this?

Perhaps I already do what you suggest regarding this. Generally I rotate heavily. Trying to prevent fatigue and keep everyone fresh. It is also my impression that players often perform much worse in a match if their condition is low, so you might as well start a worse player in better condition.

So, no matter whether the player is old or young, I keep their fatigue level at "fresh" most of the time. And they almost never get above "low" since I play them less when they are at that level; I essentially limit the playing time of a player at "low" fatigue level untill he is back at "fresh".

[danej]

1 hour ago, Cloud9 said:

When judging a young player, look at what he can do now. He could improve significantly, but if he's not the mold of player you're looking for it's best to move him on. Your coaches can also just be wrong about their assessment of him. Chasing CA/PA is a classic blunder on FM. 

I am pretty sure that you are right here as well. It is just that - regarding many aspects of the game I prefer to be lazy, to keep things simple. Regarding this as well. So far, I have never cared about attributes and haven't cared to learn to assess a player according to attributes. For a lazy man like me, CA seems like a great short cut, even if probably some times inaccurate.

 

Also for me, it makes the game more fun and unpredictable to just assess players on CA/PA. Then I sometimes buy crap youngster who don't develop etc. I like the randomness, makes saves more unpredictable. But of course not optimal in the slightest. I don't like optimizing very much, it makes the game too easy and boring for my taste. I like to experiment with variours kinds of save restrictions and approaches that create some randomness.

[Cloud9]

9 hours ago, danej said:

I am pretty sure that you are right here as well. It is just that - regarding many aspects of the game I prefer to be lazy, to keep things simple. Regarding this as well. So far, I have never cared about attributes and haven't cared to learn to assess a player according to attributes. For a lazy man like me, CA seems like a great short cut, even if probably some times inaccurate.

 

Also for me, it makes the game more fun and unpredictable to just assess players on CA/PA. Then I sometimes buy crap youngster who don't develop etc. I like the randomness, makes saves more unpredictable. But of course not optimal in the slightest. I don't like optimizing very much, it makes the game too easy and boring for my taste. I like to experiment with variours kinds of save restrictions and approaches that create some randomness.

If you've found a style of play that suits you, I say go for it  I'll lay out what I do in terms of development but feel free to cherry pick what fits how you'd like to play the game.

I would use early development periods (18-20) as a good indicator of how a player will develop. If they don't develop well is this period, they will struggle even more so as they age. Unless that player can do something for my first team now, I would consider moving them on (even w/a reportedly high potential). I've had that a couple times where I've brought an a really exciting talent with a poor personality. In past versions of the game, I would view a player w/a bad personality as pretty much done w/ development at 23 and still open to developing to 26-27 w/a good personality. That window is more lenient on FM24 and developing players into their 20's is much more user friendly. Building a good personality squad culture can also help to open this window of development, as staff/playing staff personality will rub off on the players coming through (if you can do this on the youth team and the first team you can make real progress to negative personality traits).

On overplaying players, you're trying to ensure they get game time but not plunged in the deep end. Natural fitness is a good indicator of how much they can be played, but in general you just shouldn't be playing them in the red (also because injuries in young developmental periods can really hamper development). I also wrap injury prone player's in cotton wool, this is an extra level of complexity that requires management of their individualized training intensity. If you get a notification that the player is jaded things have gone too far already. I try to play younger players in matches where I can get them better ratings, as those impact development as well. An overplayed youngster can easily stagnant. 

On a player's expected growth. If they're championship quality and young there's no reason why they wouldn't be able to achieve their potential as a premier league quality player in the span of a few years unless there was a personality hiccup. It's much more difficult when the player has a particularly long way to go in his development, either due to a low starting point or a particularly high ceiling. If you get a couple of these player's within your squad, it might be worth giving them extra attention, especially if they're not blessed with a great personality. 

In terms of adding randomness / challenge to your save I would recommend adding recruitment handicaps to your gameplay. I personally only sign players who my scouts bring back to me and don't use future fees in my transfers. You can also add a requirement for a certain number of your first team squad to be members of the youth academy. This means that I'm forced to work with player's of varying personality and when I do find a gem it's a rare find and I really have to work to get the best out of them in game. Imo that's added a lot of immersion to my own saves and helps to remove that feeling of inevitable development/success you can get on FM. 

Development is an area of the game that if you deep dive into you can really get a lot out of. I find by creating my own schedules and managing the player's individually I can develop player's I'd previously struggle to. This can be quite rewarding, as you can get your star boy who goes out clubbing to mature into a gem  

Edited January 30 by Cloud9

[danej]

10 hours ago, Cloud9 said:

I would use early development periods (18-20) as a good indicator of how a player will develop. If they don't develop well is this period, they will struggle even more so as they age. Unless that player can do something for my first team now, I would consider moving them on (even w/a reportedly high potential). I've had that a couple times where I've brought an a really exciting talent with a poor personality. In past versions of the game, I would view a player w/a bad personality as pretty much done w/ development at 23 and still open to developing to 26-27 w/a good personality. That window is more lenient on FM24 and developing players into their 20's is much more user friendly. Building a good personality squad culture can also help to open this window of development, as staff/playing staff personality will rub off on the players coming through (if you can do this on the youth team and the first team you can make real progress to negative personality traits).

Interesting. I thought that development was pretty much done at 24 even with the best of players, with the best personalities etc. But perhaps that was FM23 and earlier versions. And a good reminder regarding squad personality.

The former part - I am actually doing something quite similar. Typically I review all players aged 23 and younger every 6 months. If they haven't progressed during the last 12 months, I typically try to sell them. No matter how young they are and how much PA they have on paper. I have the same impression as you seem to have - some just don't develop well, typically those with bad or neutral personalities I guess. And with those I guess you often get a better price when they are young and there are fools out there who think they have real potential.

[danej]

10 hours ago, Cloud9 said:

On overplaying players, you're trying to ensure they get game time but not plunged in the deep end. Natural fitness is a good indicator of how much they can be played, but in general you just shouldn't be playing them in the red (also because injuries in young developmental periods can really hamper development). I also wrap injury prone player's in cotton wool, this is an extra level of complexity that requires management of their individualized training intensity. If you get a notification that the player is jaded things have gone too far already. I try to play younger players in matches where I can get them better ratings, as those impact development as well. An overplayed youngster can easily stagnant. 

Interesting. I know that you are right regarding all this. Some of these things I deliberately ignore and don't optimize because, as mentioned earlier, I prefer the game not to be too easy which I feel it gets if you are not careful and creative regarding save restrictions, tweaks to how you play etc.

 

Anyway, I just have one detail where I am not sure that you are always right. Regarding playing players "in the red": I feel like AI exagerates the risk when a player has played more than 180 minutes the past two weeks. Then it automatically views the player with a "high" injury risk, no matter how fresh he might be etc. In such instances I don't look much at the overall injury risk assesment, but look mostly at his fatigue level. If his fatigue level is "fresh" and his condition is peak, or sometimes excellent, I usually regarding as ready to play. I don't see that this approach increases injury risk.

 

I never have jaded players btw. As mentioned I rotate a lot etc. to prevent if from happening. Feels that this works best in the long run. And probably in the long run as well since players with good condition seem to perform better.

[danej]

10 hours ago, Cloud9 said:

In terms of adding randomness / challenge to your save I would recommend adding recruitment handicaps to your gameplay. I personally only sign players who my scouts bring back to me and don't use future fees in my transfers. You can also add a requirement for a certain number of your first team squad to be members of the youth academy. This means that I'm forced to work with player's of varying personality and when I do find a gem it's a rare find and I really have to work to get the best out of them in game. Imo that's added a lot of immersion to my own saves and helps to remove that feeling of inevitable development/success you can get on FM. 

I actually go much further than this hehe. To keep the game tough, challenging.

I delegate all scouting to staff. And I delegate most regarding signing to staff as well (the DoF). So regarding recruitment, I mostly do things like in a Head Coach challenge.

However, the only and major thing I do differently is that I can veto incoming deals that the DoF has negotiated (or the HoYD for the youth squads). Since most of their negotiated signings are crap, this effectively means that I cancel most of the planned incoming signings.

This means that I buy and loan very few players. On average perhaps just around three players for the first team squad per season + a varying handful of players for the youth teams.

So, as you probably know already, by doing things this way, I rarely get my hand of great  bargains and wonderkids. I enjoy playing this way. Recruitment is an area where it is incredibly easy to massively overperform AI, even with quite a few restrictions as the ones you use. So I take it to the extreme to keep a save tough. And I like it.

[danej]

10 hours ago, Cloud9 said:

 

Development is an area of the game that if you deep dive into you can really get a lot out of. I find by creating my own schedules and managing the player's individually I can develop player's I'd previously struggle to. This can be quite rewarding, as you can get your star boy who goes out clubbing to mature into a gem  

I know you are right. And that is excactly the reason that I don't do it hehe. I can see that it can feel rewarding. It just doesn't feel that way for me. I have tried it before, and for me it feels a bit like cheating, the game becoming too ease (purely subjectively). If I basically develop my young players much better than AI does, it is a big step towards to guaranteed long term world dominance wonderkid development factory. It perhaps feels rewarding and fun for a while. But for me personally, I eventually get bored and disillusioned with it, feel like I am just manipulating pixels or something. Which I know that we do in any case. I just like to try and keep both short term and long term performance levels on a realistic level and not win the Champions League with Sunderland within 5-10 years etc.

[Cloud9]

On 30/01/2024 at 23:37, danej said:

Interesting. I know that you are right regarding all this. Some of these things I deliberately ignore and don't optimize because, as mentioned earlier, I prefer the game not to be too easy which I feel it gets if you are not careful and creative regarding save restrictions, tweaks to how you play etc.

 

Anyway, I just have one detail where I am not sure that you are always right. Regarding playing players "in the red": I feel like AI exagerates the risk when a player has played more than 180 minutes the past two weeks. Then it automatically views the player with a "high" injury risk, no matter how fresh he might be etc. In such instances I don't look much at the overall injury risk assesment, but look mostly at his fatigue level. If his fatigue level is "fresh" and his condition is peak, or sometimes excellent, I usually regarding as ready to play. I don't see that this approach increases injury risk.

 

I never have jaded players btw. As mentioned I rotate a lot etc. to prevent if from happening. Feels that this works best in the long run. And probably in the long run as well since players with good condition seem to perform better.

It doesn't guarantee an injury will occur, but this red zone mimics how physios / medical staff will indicate to the manager IRL that a player shouldn't start. Having several high quality physios will really cut down on the injuries you get either way. 

If you do choose to play them, just know you're taking a risk that the medical staff is advising against. I find that by following that guideline I avoid overplaying players as well, so that they won't get into a tailspin of fatigue. 

Your pre-season training will impact these things as well. 

Edited February 1 by Cloud9