The scouting pre-FM7 was poor not just because of the rudimentary information, but also because scouts, like assistant managers and coaches, talked ********.
Nowadays, you get a large report, which is fine, but can you trust a word of it? After all, ******** is ********, whether its one line or one hundred.
Moving towards my suggestion...
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that the game has probabilities factored in to decide whether or not a coach (or whoever) will give you decent information or complete rubbish. EG: In FM6 (and for all we know in FM7) an assistant manager or coach report on a youth player would read something like â€œthis player could become a class actâ€ etc. Youâ€™d get all exited, load FM Scout to have a look and it turns out heâ€™s got a CA of 5 and a PA of 8. You were given utter ********. Other times, however, they appear to be given decent information. Like rolling some dice, you ask a question and its mere chance whether you get crap or decent infoâ€™. The poor coach is more likely to talk rubbish (but not necessarily always) and vice versa. This is useless as you cannot possibly know if what theyâ€™ve said in correct or not.
I know they are trying to replicate reality, where coaches etc donâ€™t always get things right, some are better than others and all that, but there is a world of difference in judging this in the real world and in a game. In a game I think we should be able to trust the information. The quality of the staff member concerned should manifest itself in the AMOUNT of information, not the likelihood of it being complete garbage. So, a poor assistant manager or coach might give one line indicating the youth player with CA/PA of 5/8 is unlikely to make it. A quality assistant manager/coach would provide a report similar to the new FM7 scouting system that goes into more detail. Either way, you would have SOME idea about that player without worrying if the staff member concerned said the opposite to real truth.
The same goes for physio reports. This stuff about â€œout between a week and six monthsâ€ is laughable. Real life? A physio wouldnâ€™t last 10 minutes in a job if he was that dopey. A bloke in the pub could give a more accurate time scale if you gave him the injury and when it happened. Itâ€™s fair enough for poorer physios to be a bit less sure of a diagnosis, but not to anything like that level. Instead, they should have a +/- accuracy of no more than 10% of the true time out and combine the â€œquality of staff factorâ€ with the amount of information. For example, a good physio, in addition to providing accurate assessments of time out injured, could provide in-depth reports of the playerâ€™s condition. The poorer physio would give the usual one liner and a slightly less accurate time out prediction.
Iâ€™d also like to see more physio involvement, eg half time and in-game indications of the injury a player has picked up (at the moment its just a green square â€“ what injury is it? Is it likely to get worse if he remains on the pitch or is it the sort of injury that can be run off?), reports about future injury proneness, repetitions of former injuries etc. Again, a good physio would provide extensive information, a bad one minimal information. But GOOD information, NOT left to chance whether it was utter rubbish.