Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

xouman

Members
  • Content count

    536
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About xouman

  • Rank
    Amateur

About Me

  • About Me
    Struggling in EPL with Merthyr Tydfil 8.0.2
  1. aging players

    most players don't play at top level past 32. You can tell me dozens of players who do, and I can tell you hundreds of players who don't. For Yeste, he won't be a star at 30 IMHO, he lacks proffesionality, and his physical traits are currently nothing special. Surely in some years they will drop significantly. Do someone remember Julen Guerrero? he was better than Yeste is now, had more proffessionality and he suddenly dissapeared. Fernando hierro lost a lot of physical attributes in few years and played badly last years. Raul is not half of the player he was, just aged 30, del piero lost his star condition long time ago...
  2. hawshiels tests show that tackle is also highly improved with DFC. It seems that central positions (CB, DMC, MC...) are the most benefited with DFC.
  3. Maybe they are already close to their PA... what about players with CA << PA?
  4. so it's wise to set strength training intensity at low level after 23 yo? Won't those attributes go lower then? And what about aerobics? Should I set also a low intensity past 23? thaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks
  5. do you did the first test with players with CA from 100 to 200 or from 100 to 149? I think that second way seems more informative as it's independant from second test. kutgw!
  6. good job lance! I have another question now: those 123 initial ability points, what are them? 123/100 fmm points (25/20 normal points)? how are they assigned? do they have any preference? all MC with CA=1 have 123 initial ability points? and specially: how can DMC star with more points than MC if he have less free points??? this annoys me :/ thanks again, and excuse me for being so dull
  7. I think that DFC is indeed the best TECHNICAL attribute for a player. A player relying on physical style does not need DFC as a technical player does. Players perform better if they don't have to put always the ball on the strong foot. A player with technical attributes average of 3 would prefer rather 20 pace and acceleration than 20 in WF, but a player with 17 TAA maybe plays better with high DFC.
  8. That would be the 'bang for your buck' effect I mentioned in a previous post then, probably due to coaching staff and facilities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure lance. I was a BSP team, with 5/20 in facilities and few bad half-time coaches, and still the player increased a bit during those 3-4 years I loaned him. he was really a L1 player, or good L2 at least. Then, he goes to a scotish team, full time, more reputation than mine, and he forget how to play football and run. maybe scotish team hadn't good facilities or any coach, but that drop was amazing. and that happened several times later, even from players in my reserves ho crumbled going to a welsh team.
  9. Do you have the scottish leagues active? I've noted a strange link between active leagues and the effects of playing time on development. It appears that the CA development model is referencing the statistics in the 'Games played in position' section rather than the statistics at the bottom of a player's profile. The reason I think this is happening is because in my test game one youngster aged 19 went on loan to an English side in a non active league (they would have been Championship level if the league was active). He played 30+ games according to his statistics at the bottom of his profile but in the 'games played in position' section it said none. His CA increase was equivalent to those who saw no first team competitive action, but the youngster who played 15+ games in an active league gained about 20 CA points more. I think there are issues with how non active leagues behave. Alongside development is how players in non active leagues never complain about not playing first team football. In my current game Marcelo went 3 seasons with Madrid playing only 10 matches total, but despite his contract set to key player he never complained about not playing regularly. But that's for another thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> yes, i had scotland active. Also happened with welsh teams, and I had wales in full detail: players who are about L2 drop amazingly when signing for a bad club, even if they play :/
  10. thanks hawshiels!!! those last increases in attributes are x/20 or x/100? 8/20 seems amazing, but 2-3/100 seems marginal for a 16 yo player. And I have a question. In my last game, I started in BSS. I loaned few players, and I managed to loan one of these for 3-4 years. My coaches said he was a L1 player (and he seemed that), and when his club promoted they decided he was not good enough, and was not renewed. since my club was in BSP or L2, he wasn't interested in my club and went to scotland. in 2-3 years he seemed a bss player, his attributes dropped in a terrific way, and he was 22-25 yo. 1-2 years later, he was absolutely rubbish, worse than any of my grey u18 players. I didn't look at his CA or PA, but from my experience he could be perfectly a L1 player looking at his spider web attributes display (swad) the same happened with some players I play and then release, they go to scotland small teams and destroy themselves how can a player drop his attributes so easily? and most of these players are playing a lot!!! one reason could be the absence of coaches, but I'm not sure...
  11. 1. Don't think so. Maybe was just bad luck, but in my yesterday's tests was a big difference between players aged 16 and 25. all players aged 16 improved 4+ points, and no player above 23 improved 2 points or more. All of them training in a new position to help this. 2. This value is related to training? I suppose that it is. Where is the point when a player maintains his quality and despite he's not improving, he's also not losing attributes? how many diferences are between top facilities and coaches and medium facilities and coaches? 3. Which MATT are more likely to improve without playing? and non official matches count as played matches? It's not related with player's age? 4. Same as 3 and: how many matches should a player play in order increase at least 50 MATT? 5. This ir related to age for sure. which PATT are more likely to increase? how many points do the player increase if he is, for example, aged 20? Sorry if I seem harsh, but I'm asking things that I would like to know ^^ Thanks a lot for you efforts! @isuckatfm: So if a naturally right footed player plays every match as a left winger while training as a left winger then you get greater gains in his left foot than if he were just training the new position of AM L. I also have had the same coincidence, but 100% sure. Maybe I can look again my saved game (I was going to delete it as I was sacked after 20 years :____ ) and see if players who have had best increases played in new positions and if players with low increases haven't played at all. I will tell you something tonight or tomorrow. But that player I'm always talking about (the one who achieved DFC status) played a lot of games in the new side.
  12. Sorry for double post :s first conclusions: -age is very important. at 16yo players improved an average of 5-6/100, 18yo players improved an average of 3-4/100, and players over 20 improved 1/100 WF points -PA > CA also seems important. players far from their potential improved more, and if they are close they barely improve, even if they are very young. -as they are related, maybe both are involved with WF improvement, but maybe only of both. I haven't found other elements involved. Maybe (I'm not sure at all) playing in the weak side helps to improve that leg. But I said the other day that I had a player who improved a lot. But there are some differences: that player appeared quite young (15yo), despite being a striker had good winger traits and played as LM 40% of matches when he was <23 yo, he played a lot since 16 because he was on loan some years, he had high PA... maybe he improved around 7/100 some years.
  13. @lance101: why did I say 1 CA? to get the starting point for the formula. If attributes are increased in a linear way this test is not really useful, but we never know. Besides, having all players 1 CA should gave them the same number of attributes (weighted, of course), I think that randomness would be lower. but it's true that your former tests gave me the idea, and indeed my ideas nearly a copy of yours Only more examples to help finding the formula. @hawshiels: I did a test yesterday. However, my internet connection at home often does not work properly, so I couldn't post the results, I'll post them tonight if I can. But I'll tell you what I remember: -Scenario: I started the test on may 24th, 2028 (all regens). Team is Merthyr Tydfil, continental status, best facilities and 8-10 coaches between 4-6*. The test ended 365 days after, all the time on holiday. All players in the test were training a reposition to improve weak foot (LB for CB, LM for MC and AML for ST). From june 30th I was not managing the team, but players still had trained reposition. -changes during the year: As I've said, I was sacked 1 month after the test. few players were sold and som were bought, but results were quite clear. team ended 9th in EPL (not a great result, but decent). All players trained with default program, if I'm not wrong. These are the results: -Two players improved 7/100 their WF. Both 16yo, playing regularly in Merthyr u18 squad, performing under average, average determination, improved 15CA during the year... one has 90CA and 130 PA, the other 70CA and 90PA. both have about 40/100 WF points... -One player have improved 6/100. 16yo also, playing regularly in u18, slighly over average, also improved 15CA points... I'm not sure about his CA-PA, but surely PA > CA+20. Single footed -A couple of players improved 5/100. both 18yo, great PA (170-180) and PA > CA+50, playing regularly in first team, single footed. One was sold in january -5 players improved 4/100. all aged 16-18, one of them very close to his PA, another already dual footed (80/100), average determination, all with 70 < PA < 140. another one was 22yo striker, 175 PA, 140 CA, who has not started repositioning from the very beginning. -Few players improved 2/100. one of them is 23yo but had PA = CA+20, none of these aged 16 or less. -some players improved 1/100. some "old" (27yo), some young (17yo) but already achieved their PA... no young player far from his potential has improved only 1 point. -Some players didn't improve at all. One of them was a young player transfered very quick. others were not so young (>23 yo), but still had some space to improve (CA<PA).
  14. 2. Not sure. I will tell you my experience from few players: -I have a 23 yo player who is still right only (weak left foot, very weak at 16) despite having being repositioning as LM for 6-7 years. He has high CA (over 150) and his PA is still 20 points ahead. He can play as CD, DMC, MC (he plays 33% of the time in each of these more or less) and now also as LM (less than 5% of the time). He has not good winger attributes. Plays always. -I had a ST repositioned as LM. He had good crossing (16-18) and improved his weak foot 2 points each year until he had two strong feet. he played 30-40% of the matches as LM. he is also an EPL player, and has always been a first team player. -I have a couple of CDs who had been repositioned as LB for 10 years, and they have improved nearly 0.8-1 weak foot point each year. The have played at least 2/3 of matches, and near 50% as LB. -I have a 21 yo striker. He is also 18/20 AML (I can't remember if he was already good or if I trained him there) and 18/20 AMR (he's training this) and has improved 2-3 points his weak leg in 3-4 years. Has played 33% first time matches, most of them as sub. I know it's not serious information, just tell me what kind of data do you prefer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for this xouman. Maybe one or two of your players can help me work out something I'm struggling with at the moment. In each of my saved games, I am struggling to come up with a single example of a player that has developed their weaker foot by 10 points (on the 1-20 scale). I can find players with increases of 5-6 points, but no-one with greater than this. I have now tended to buy players with DFC and then train them, but for comparison purposes, I wanted to see what would happen if I took a one footed player with great stats and then train him in the weaker foot. As you can probably tell, I have been focussing much of my recent testing on the importance of DFC in players and the more I test, the more it is becoming apparent at how important it is. Pace in previous versions of FM was over rated in my opinion, but it is now less of a bonus than it was before. The new GREAT attribute seems to me to be DFC. So, what I want to know (and I'm happy doing the tests again to check this) is, is it better to: - Buy a player with SFC (single footed competence), with good attribute scores and spend time training him on the weaker foot (although this seems to be quite difficult) ... or .... - Buy a player with DFC (dual footed competence), with lower attribute scores and spend the time training him in the key areas. I am currently having great success with the latter of these two, but I didn't want to write the first option off if anyone out there can find a way (or even suggest a way that I can test) to make this work. Maybe the AML trained to AMR will be the best chance of reaching any great degree of success on the weaker foot so if you could pay attention to the growth of this player, I'd appreciate it. Anyone else with any success in this area is strongly encouraged to share their experiences. Cheers. p.s. Recently, when I've been watching football on television or at matches live, I have been paying particular attention to the possible improvement in effectiveness of players if they had DFC. I watched Man Utd and saw how Cristiano Ronaldo and Anderson could take advantage of situations because of their comfort at making passes and crosses with both feet. I then watched players such as Fabregas (albeit a world class player himself) having to take the ball onto his stronger foot before he was comfortable in making a pass during a fast break. Now the difference with Fabregas and other players having to do this is his technique and control of the ball. He is able to very quickly get the ball onto his other foot and make the pass. However, here's the thing .... the next time you watch a game, see just how long it takes a SFC player to control the ball onto his stronger foot to make a longer range (40 yards or more) pass. It actually is the difference between the opposition being able to close him down or not. I think if you pay attention to this in games, you will be very surprised at how long it takes and perhaps FM08 is just reflecting this accurately - whether by accident or by design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, in my current game I'm close to get sacked because I have performed awfully with 8.0.2 and chairman doesn't want to offer me a contract so I could look him with fmm and simulate 2-3 seasons... but how can I make sure that he is retraining as AMR? If I can, I will check all my squad players and see how they develope each season. if I take off autosavings and minimum detail I could do that in a couple of hours. But now I'm at work
×