Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
cata89

Two footed players

Recommended Posts

I don't record specific stats, so it could be selective memory. But if I'm playing a 1 footed fullback, I'll often try having my wide players attack on his weaker side (eg cut-inside instead of go wider) and this often seems to bring up the prompt 'been getting skinned all too often'. As I say, however, it could just be selective memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is it unfair? You are clearly not testing this correctly at all, you should be testing it with a 20/1 with 20's in those stats and a 20/20 also with 20's in those stats. SI chose to use this formula and they wouldn't have done so without a good reason...

I don't even understand what the whole fuss is about, because without an editor you wouldn't even have a clue what their CA or PA was and if it matters so much, why don't you just stick to using 1 footed players?

This would be true if he was looking at quantifying how different attributes affect ratings, varying CA to keep things from moving; but he's claiming weaker feet have a disproportionate effect on ratings when CA is kept constant (you can't go 20/1 => 20/20 and keep the attributes constant without raising CA) - i.e. weaker feet have a disproportionate weighting on performances compared with the weighting on CA.

Personally, I think we need a test that changes other important attributes, like Composure and Finishing 1 or 20 (for a striker) to see the effects, and compare the ratings/goals scored/whatever per attribute - that will tell us whether it's disproportionate or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, in short:

a 20 finishing player with Right Foot Only can hit a better shot than a 16 finishing player with Either Foot.

However, an either footed finisher will be more useful, more often, in far more positions than the one-footed player will be.

For that Right-Only player's 20 to be utilised correctly, you have to set it up perfectly for him.

(Regarding the Soldado test above - two seasons is not an adequate sample size so the test is meaningless).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Soldado test just doesn't work because there are simply so many variables that are being ignored.

As for the overall general point, two-footedness counts towards a players CA, (and it's not exactly a secret). As a 2-footed player is more effective than a 1-footed player, isn't that completely reasonable?

Someone did some brilliant work on "attribute weighting" a couple of years ago I think. (When Sven is about maybe he will magic up a link to it). I'm surprised to not see it linked in here already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Soldado test just doesn't work because there are simply so many variables that are being ignored.

As for the overall general point, two-footedness counts towards a players CA, (and it's not exactly a secret). As a 2-footed player is more effective than a 1-footed player, isn't that completely reasonable?

Someone did some brilliant work on "attribute weighting" a couple of years ago I think. (When Sven is about maybe he will magic up a link to it). I'm surprised to not see it linked in here already.

That weighting is relative to CA. What the Soldado test should do is compare those weightings to the actual ratings, to see how it stacks up.

For example, for a striker, you would expect tackling to have a minimal effect on his rating, and it wouldn't have much of a weighting on CA, either. So if Tackling 20 magically turns Soldado into Messi, you may have an issue, because the effectiveness of a striker's tackling on performances is perhaps disproportionate to how it is weighted on CA.

Replace tackling with weaker foot strength and you have the Soldado example as presented above.

I think the real weirdness is attributes dropping to make up for it. If a player improves his weaker foot over a year or so, while not neglecting the other aspects of his game, he doesn't magically get worse at passing. Sure, he could have improved his passing instead by focusing on it instead of his weaker foot, but that's just another way of training. As a result, it's a bit weird to see other attributes plummet when you edit a player to have 20/20 feet. It's a CA oddity, not a weak foot oddity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's possible to have a two footed player with CA and PA of 200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it's possible to have a two footed player with CA and PA of 200.

Yep. Pretty sure I've seen a player like that. In my last save, AC Milan had a defender whose attributes were unreal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

- But not possible to have a Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo type player with 20/20. Like Football Manager saying there is a limit to how good a player can become.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with SI that two-footedness should take up some Current Ability. The question is whether the weaker foot has been weighted properly with respect to how the ME works, which is an important question for all attributes really.

Judging by my experience with my own players, I find it harder to utilize two-footed players than one-footed players with similar CA (and therefore better attributes). So I try to stay away from two-footed players for the time being, as I end up paying for Ability that I can't use.

So my question to everyone is: In your game, are you actively looking for two-footed players? (or maybe players with at least a reasonable weaker foot). Have you managed to utilize two-footedness as a big advantage? Because if nobody has, then it might mean that two-footedness has been weighted too heavily and maybe SI should be looking into ways to adjust its weight in CA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Adjust the weight in CA, or increase have players that have the ability to use both feet, be better represented in the ME.

But that is just my own personal opinion.

Personally I'd prefer the latter - that ME represents two-footedness skill better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong.

Someone with 20 finishing will not be better than someone with 18 if that 18 striker can use both feet.

If conditions are perfect, the 20 finishing will be better. However, a One-footed player has a lot less chance of perfect conditions in comparison to a two-footed player.

One footed players will look better, but they won't play better on average.

(This is all assuming that every single other variant is exactly the same - however, it's not possible to do a test where every single other variant is exactly the same, the best you can do is collect as large a sample size as possible and compare.).

My point was that he wasn't testing it correctly and he should make the stats identical (even if it means raising the CA for the 20/20) and do the 20/20 + 20/1 test and just see what the results are with that... Every stat except strongest foot would be identical and in theory the two footed player should excel more. To compare a player with lower stats just doesn't make sense because it's obvious what the outcome is.

Wouldn't make any difference unless you could find a way to simulate each match so that they play out in exactly the same way, which is impossible. Your best bet is to grab one player, set him to 20/1 and simulate 50 seasons (using season 1 so that conditions are at least reasonably similar at the start) then do the same with the player at 20/20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at the stats for the season, see if there's adequate representation of two footed players in things like goalscoring, passing etc across the various leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I'm not, I've done extensive testing on it.

Can I ask you then. Because it seems that two-footed players only really excell in some positions and/or roles.

Would'nt it be wiser to only have weaker foot CA cost high at those positions/roles?

As an example have Goalkeepers or Wingers have weaker foot training cost less?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'a not so much about proof. It's evidence that leads you to a conclusion. If you don't share Ackter's views, then that's fine, but run your own experiment and publish your own conclusions. Whatever Ackter, (or anyone else), posts, you will just pick holes in it because you have already made up your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have yet to make up my mind - hence me trying to get a comment from SI on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what to be decided on here?

Some positions will benefit more from the ability to use both feet than others.It also depends on the roles you assign people.

The most obvious way to view this is to pick a team who keep good possession and do one test on a central midfielder (best if he's the middle of 3, but it's not too important). Set him to one foot only, watch just 1 game against almost any team and watch the full match (not highlights). Then do the same with him with 2 perfect feet. You'll see the difference it makes in terms of the passes he attempts and completes as being 2 footed opens up his options more.

The cost for being 2 footed I suppose is open for debate, but really it's your decision on if you want the individual skill or the overall versatility. From the OP's tests (small sample limitations aside) it suggests that perhaps for the way that he utilizes Soldado that for him, a striker that's one footed works better. But I certainly find my teams plays far better with a more evenly footed player playing up front (lone striker False 9).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I ask you then. Because it seems that two-footed players only really excell in some positions and/or roles.

Would'nt it be wiser to only have weaker foot CA cost high at those positions/roles?

As an example have Goalkeepers or Wingers have weaker foot training cost less?

Two footed players will excel in any role on average - a two-footed winger can be lethal in the hands of a good manager.

The use of both feet as a keeper only really comes into it when under pressure. You'll see a better quality of distribution when under pressure, but this only really matters depending on your play style. If you just want the keeper to boot it then it won't make too much of a difference (though a one-footed keeper being pressured on to his poor side is far more likely to make a mistake with the ball at his feet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Post up the proof :) It's what people want after all.

If I still had it, I would. It's in an excel sheet somewhere, but christ knows where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...