Lower league player physical atts way too low

[LeoVieira]

I started a game with BSS side Bath City, and i was expecting something like every players having all their physical attribute lower than 10. But it's not, my players actually have decent physical attributes and one of them even have Natural Fitness 16, Stamina 17 and Strenght 18. So yeah, it seems fine to me, i mean, i never watched those players irl, but i don't think BSS players are as good physically as EPL players tbh.

[Jay-Producer]

For those who are interested and called me a liar, I have all the evidence now gathered on the matters I discussed, please PM if your that pity!

[Jay-Producer]

Screw the op, i only open this thread to read all your bulls**t.

tbf 90% of what you've said is bs

Are you blind? PM ME AND STOP HIJACKING THE THREAD.

[bigdunk]

agreed. concentrate on the OP.

is it realistic for a pro player or semi pro player to have only 1 in a physicall stat?

Yes, because the scale is measuring pro/semi-pro footballers, not everybody. 1 is the lowest you would expect for a player playing at the lowest level represented on the game. Obviously if a player has 1 in all his physical attributes than it's a bit questionable, I suppose.

[looknohands]

But how would you explain the 1 stamina, then? You'd be lucky to have a player last until half-time, and anything under ten basically restricts you to a sub role.

Regardless, SI has already stated that this is a result of their attribute system within the game and not a true-life reflection. They, at least, recognize the shortcomings of the current system and hopefully will find a way to improve it for the future.

[Jay-Producer]

Can we come to some conclusion over this:

It seems from the discussion that around 90% of the BSP players need their Physical attributes increased.

- Some (perhaps 10%) need all of their physical stats increased up to that of Premiership players (nothing ridiculous of course).

- Certainly everyone's speed and acceleration needs increased.

- Perhaps around 50% need their physical strength increased to that of Premiership players.

- Perhaps around 40% need their stamina increased to at least Co-cola Championship football. Perhaps some 5% need it increased dramatically.

- Perhaps natural fitness should stay the same for most. Only around 10% should have it increased.

- Perhaps Jumping and all that malarkey needs to be increased for everyone. Just because they play at a lower level doesn't prevent them from Jumping.

What would everyone think of that? Just trying to summaries a reality here.

[x42bn6]

Can we come to some conclusion over this:

It seems from the discussion that around 90% of the BSP players need their Physical attributes increased.

- Some (perhaps 10%) need all of their physical stats increased up to that of Premiership players (nothing ridiculous of course).

No. Less. More like 1%, because you do occasionally get the massive battering ram (Strength 16-20), but that's usually because he's sacrificed every bit of pace he has.

- Certainly everyone's speed and acceleration needs increased.

No.

- Perhaps around 50% need their physical strength increased to that of Premiership players.

No.

- Perhaps around 40% need their stamina increased to at least Co-cola Championship football. Perhaps some 5% need it increased dramatically.

No.

- Perhaps natural fitness should stay the same for most. Only around 10% should have it increased.

Yes.

- Perhaps Jumping and all that malarkey needs to be increased for everyone. Just because they play at a lower level doesn't prevent them from Jumping.

Oh, but you'd be surprised at what world class facilities do to help your jumping! Look at those high jumpers!

To be frank, the only way you could have drawn these conclusions would be if you ignored the substantial objections to your views. Did you make your conclusion first and then look for evidence, or the other way round?

By the way, there is a slight problem at Blue Square level with regards to rubbish stamina, I think - but I think it simply needs a slight tweak so Stamina 1 means they at least finish 45 minutes on condition 60.

I think of Stamina 1 as the least-developed youngster on the worst Blue Square North/South team - the guy who hasn't developed physically yet at all, and is naturally poor anyway - but has his own qualities.

[nax]

If I remember correctly, the pace attribute in the game doesn't just reflect the player's pace. To be precise, it means the player's pace while running with the ball. Maybe that explains why lower league players have lower pace attributes. They can run just as fast with anyone else without the ball, but don't have the technical skills to run equally fast with the ball at their feet.

[Draakon]

Well, if we are talking about really lower league players, I think players with good strength and speed has a lot more advantage in lower leagues than they have in Premiership. Mostly because overall skill level (both technical and physical) is lower, so physical superiority gives you an edge. For example if you are LL striker with pace and acceleration of 15 you often find yourself against defender with pace of 5 or 8. It rarely happens in higher level because differences in players physical attributes are smaller.

Described player (fast striker) will be very good in that league because he's waaay faster than most of other players. So he obviously is moving up to higher league where his pace is not so deadly weapon any more and with average or poor technical skills he becomes average striker. However, the main point is that he won't be staying in lower league because it's no challenge there for him.

So in conclusion I agree in overall, that there shouldn't be much players in lower leagues with significant physical attributes and I find it rather logical.

[looknohands]

What if stamina itself was changed? Instead of stamina determining how long your player can stay out on the pitch (current system) it was changed so that natural fitness determined how long a player can play and stamina determines how long it takes your player to recover? An example: someone like Giggs who, even as he ages, is still able to go 90 minutes on the pitch. But because of his age, he may need the odd game off here and there to prevent him from wearing out. Give him something like a 15 for fitness (good chance of finishing the game at a reasonable level) but lower his stamina to a 10 or something, meaning he'll need some time off when the schedule gets crowded.)

As for the lower-level stats...look, the Premier League isn't concerned with having the best athletes in the world, only the most talented ones. There's plenty of players from the lower divisions that could play for 90 minutes against top talent (doesn't this happen in the FA cup every year???) but they simply don't have the tools to be effective. The game, however, can't reflect this very well, as to give lower players any sort of skill requires a huge knock against their physical stats and that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the problem is.

[Ceching You Out]

I think most posters are missing the important hypothesis raised by nax: physical attributes could refer to only their relevance within a match of football. For example, pace would not indicate a player's 100m time, strength would not indicate a player's bench press, and jumping would not indicate a player's vertical; all these attributes would represent a player's ability under match circumstances.

Personally, I can think of a number of examples of this playing football growing up. In high school the best pure athletes generally chose American football, so it was common to recruit some of those guys to fill out our team if we were ever a little shy of true footballers. While 90% of the American footballers could out sprint, out bench press, and out vertically jump me, within the dictates of a football match I often found myself out sprinting them, knocking them over, and winning high crosses because their "pure" athleticism didn't necessarily translate to "football" atheleticism.

This would mean that lower league players aren't necessarily hampered by a low 100m time or a meager bench press, but that they struggle to translate those skills into "football" speed or "football" strength. It would also explain the observations of several other posters that the striking bruisers of Championship football frequently struggle against Premiership centerbacks who appear to have less strength. As you climb the League ladder, "pure" athleticism counts for less and "football" athleticism counts more.

On a side note, I literally laughed out loud at the comment about punching out a horse and bench pressing an elephant. I think my boss gave me a funny look over my cubicle wall.

[earmack]

I think most posters are missing the important hypothesis raised by nax: physical attributes could refer to only their relevance within a match of football. For example, pace would not indicate a player's 100m time, strength would not indicate a player's bench press, and jumping would not indicate a player's vertical; all these attributes would represent a player's ability under match circumstances.

Personally, I can think of a number of examples of this playing football growing up. In high school the best pure athletes generally chose American football, so it was common to recruit some of those guys to fill out our team if we were ever a little shy of true footballers. While 90% of the American footballers could out sprint, out bench press, and out vertically jump me, within the dictates of a football match I often found myself out sprinting them, knocking them over, and winning high crosses because their "pure" athleticism didn't necessarily translate to "football" atheleticism.

This would mean that lower league players aren't necessarily hampered by a low 100m time or a meager bench press, but that they struggle to translate those skills into "football" speed or "football" strength. It would also explain the observations of several other posters that the striking bruisers of Championship football frequently struggle against Premiership centerbacks who appear to have less strength. As you climb the League ladder, "pure" athleticism counts for less and "football" athleticism counts more.

On a side note, I literally laughed out loud at the comment about punching out a horse and bench pressing an elephant. I think my boss gave me a funny look over my cubicle wall.

This is a good post.

additionally: Top players whos job it is to be top players will be in better condition than electricians who are part time footy players. This is non-argument.

[cmontheloknow]

Top players whos job it is to be top players will be in better condition than electricians who are part time footy players. This is non-argument.

That is irrelevant to a thread about the Blue Square Premier as its teams and players are all full-time footballers. There are also a few full-time teams in in the North and South divisions.

[Guest roberto922]

It's only compulsory to be a full time club if you're in League Two, do you really think that all of the BSP players (Some of whom are only getting a small income, £70/80 p/w) are doing football full-time? Of course not, they can't afford to.

[uncoordinated]

I go to the local gym of my local team - they run 10 mins on the treadmil, get tired - then go and lift as much weight as they can whilst winking at the girls.. so i think some stats in lower leagues are correct. Wont say where i live due to fear of being sued.

[Flashman]

Nothing wrong with the physical stats in the lower leagues. If a top-level pro can have physical attributes of averaging say 15, then even 5 is too generous for players at the lowest level.

The assertion that BSN players will be as strong, quick or agile as Premier League players is utterly ridiculous.

[iamjerome]

after some investigation of what the stats are actually at in the lower leagues i've to say the OP's hypothesis is inherently flawed and apologise for discussing as if otherwise!