Os

He has 3 years left, nothing to worry about here. I would have left well alone, either the big boys come in with their offers or they go away and no harm done. You should never have transfer listed him as you would have ended up with massively lower offers for him.

Overall the game is good, however the issue with the stats not being accurate is disappointing as this part of the game has never encountered these problems before to the best of my knowledge. Please can Si assuage my concerns that as long as the game is good enough for the casual player then the quality standards are good enough? As a player that has been here from the beginning I feel a little worried that due to my money not being of any more value than the casual player then the refinements of the game will become less important.

How is it that I can't access the match details of a fixture my team played 129 days before within the same season? Absolute joke.

Yeah, I hate repeating myself.

I use it mainly to gauge where my upcoming oponent key players are directing their play through, especially key passes. Passing combos is useful for me to know where I can disrupt my opponents patterns of play. Also to see how and where from their attacking players are being fed the ball. Alternative, well I just get by from the stats we have.

Too passive with 3 up top, you might as well bring the wide players back into a 451

I've always found this an anomaly, the game itself encourages tactical changes on a game by game basis.

I think the TI 'be More disciplined' covers this.

The problem is that we are a captive audience consumer base. All we can do is hope that Si have enough pride to keep the standards as high as they possibly can and to be fair I think that they do. Things like stats are obvious bugs that I honestly haven't seen in a previous version. Also I do think that some of the bugs being posted about are not bugs at all and are a result of people not playing the game well.

Sorry, I have to disagree with this statement. You could be right or it could be a case that the board are expecting better performances because he is a key player or he gets paid more than the average. e.g if Harry Kane was averaging 6.7 a game the board would have every right to be upset as he is a top earner, world class international striker who needs to have a good season for the club to succeed. Whereas a youngster who has just broken into the team wouldn't even be mentioned if he had the same average rating.

How do your ratings compare to the rest of your league?

I think that average rating over 42 games is excellent. 8.60 woud be ridiculous.

I'm not trying to dispel your case, just adding to it.

I'm just posting a post patch example of it not happening, most of my 5th place squad have a decent rating in every position I think showing it's not universal means that some players must be doing or not doing something to trigger the poor ratings. I think it may help in resolving the 'issue'

I don't want to be an ass but this problem is clearly not universal.