Nacaw

This happens more than you think, but it's essentially just the game not displaying anything below 0.01 (I think)

Oh wow, didn't mean to start a Salford City discussion. Attendance struggles a bit to catch up when you take clubs from very low levels to the top. It's always been like that. I think it's perfectly fine, you can't base a system on extreme cases of success and 1000's of fans don't just jump ship because another team close by become successful. As an example, I've taken Halifax Town to the Prem, and Bradford City in L2 still had more attendance Both are usually thought off more as rugby cities, I think. Either way, play for long enough and any random non-league club can achieve 40k attendance. I've had crowds bigger than the population of the city the team plays in many times.

I guess you mean something like FIFA player ratings revealed? We often get a few players revealed during the new features previews. A site like you are referring to would be tantamount to cheating for me, and more importantly would ruin the fun of finding out these things myself. Not that I mind you using it or the site existing, but if stuff like that got published before the game release and pushed out through social media, I would be less likely to buy the game.

Keep going:

%-wise your increase in attendance has been amazing already. I suspect that at least part of the formular is capped to keep increases below a certain percentage. 300 for NLN is low, but is it really unrealistic low for a team that has spent decades below level 10? What have other teams coming from a similar background and area averaged? Many of the conference teams pulling "big" attendance numbers have a completely different history and infrastructure. Even Salford City, in a much bigger area but similar without much history, aren't getting good attendance numbers in League 2, after years of being in level 4, 5 or 6.

I'm in 2028 and I have the "Maintain the best youth system in the world" objective now, But as I said, no academy grads are actually playing in the first team, so the quality of players coming through hasn't been great. For this particular objective, that doesn't seem to matter.

In my experience, this just means you need to get exceptional JC and YR, with state of the art youth facilities. Playing as Newcastle, I have achieved the best youth system in the world, with zero academy players getting minutes in the past season.

There's no inflation in game.

Not sure what this thread is about, I've played in the danish Superliga and TV money went up considerably once success started..

It's a side-effect of players not regressing as fast as they used to and development being a little slower this version. It should smooth out in a couple of seasons as real players start to retire. Top clubs are simply looking for the best players instead of developing them, which inevitably leads to this.

You explained it very well - but to people not familiar with statistical analysis it will look like the rantings of a madman

The difference between 150, 160, 170 CA isn't big, and someone with 150 can actually be better than someone with 170, because of better attribute spread and hidden mentals. You should never use CA as a guideline of who gets paid what in all honesty. Generating good bids for your players takes time. Clubs need to be interested, then you'll need to reject the first couple of offers that come in, and wait for them to come back with improved terms. In this version it's easier to sell in the January window. But even then you won't sell all the players you want for "the right price", that's just not how the system is set up (it's not IRL, either). Offering out players and getting a good price is something that rarely works anymore,

Maybe Haaland doesn't match him in your specific save, but he scores even more than Immobile in most peoples games. There are a few god-like players in every version of FM, and it probably should be like that. If the ME is otherwise producing realistic results and stats, a few god players is a small price to pay.

He has close to perfect attributes for a striker and great traits + 20 Natural Fitness.. He has had some very good seasons, including the one just finished, to justify those things. It would be weird if he didn't perform to that level, because FM isn't a game of incremental gains. Players like him and Haaland are too good in the ME, and it creates unrealistic outputs they are unlikely to be matched IRL. Harry Kane is the opposite side of that coin, he rarely scores as much in FM as he will IRL.

One is the overall report, the second is the scout report.

Player values take a nice jump when you reach the championship, so that's a good time to sell. Other than that, it totally depends on their natural fitness. Lower league players generally decline faster because of lower natural fitness, but anyone with 15+ can play to 33 without problems/very little decline. 20 natural fitness makes players straight up freaks. Ciro Immobile at 36½ still has 15/15 pace/acc and has barely declined at all. It used to be that selling at 29 was the thing to do, but that has really changed in FM22.

I'll take this one, since the rest have been replied to. You are once again looking at a misleading picture. All of these tests are done with the same tactic and instructions, but it's obvious that an "extremely high tempo, attacking, counter and counter-pressing" tactic will be punished the most by lacking pace and acceleration. That doesn't mean that those are the most important stats, it simply means that they are the most important for this specific tactic to work. Furthermore, do you really think that off the ball, finishing and decisions don't matter either? You must, since they score nearly identical to height. This is a good example of your data only being as good as your methodology. What would happen if we increase all attributes by 4? What if we played a different tactic? What if we played in a different (real) league? See, we must all make these contextual choices in building our team. There's no need to strive for a universal "this is the best way", in large part because it's never a choice between the same CB with 4 less attribute points. Sebastián Coates is one of the best defenders in the game this year and he is not fast at all. He has a great spread of defensive attributes, but can obviously be made to look bad if you play with a high line, intense pressing tactic. Now, to jump back to the other video, the reason a tiny centre-back can win the most headers is partly fueled by him needing to use his head for crosses a taller player would volley. We saw in the giant player videos that height absolutely influences what a player chooses to do, and this would inflate such numbers. Most of what you've posted falls under unrealistic input, unrealistic output. That's not to say those things aren't fun, but they cannot be used to quantify what attributes are most important.