A PA 190 player will perform better than a PA 160 PA or not?

[underkiller]

I just wonder. I never use editors etc on mye games, but i finished a game i had, and used the savegame editor to look at my squad CA and PA of the players i had. The striker 1 i used had 160 PA and scored a lot of goals (His CA vas 155), and my second striker 2 has 190 PA but have not been good for me (His CA was 170). I dident know the difference in PA, so the striker i used as first team regular is not so good as the best striker, but scored more and had better average. Both is poachers. The strange thing is that Striker 1 have better stats on the poacher role than Striker 2. I find that strange. So is it normal to have player(s) who perform better than a other player in simular position, who are on the "paper" better player?

Any Thoughts?

[hluraven]

PA is irrelevant to current performance.

CA is relevant, but a player with a "better" spread of attributes in key areas can perform better than a player with higher CA but more "wasted" points on less key attributes. This would be especially true of the poacher role.

One other point is that certain attributes do not take up CA points. The main relevant one is consistency. A player of 155 CA with 20 consistency will be better over a season than a 170 CA player with 1 consistency (All else being equal).

[YKW]

I just wonder. I never use editors etc on mye games, but i finished a game i had, and used the savegame editor to look at my squad CA and PA of the players i had. The striker 1 i used had 160 PA and scored a lot of goals (His CA vas 155), and my second striker 2 has 190 PA but have not been good for me (His CA was 170). I dident know the difference in PA, so the striker i used as first team regular is not so good as the best striker, but scored more and had better average. Both is poachers. The strange thing is that Striker 1 have better stats on the poacher role than Striker 2. I find that strange. So is it normal to have player(s) who perform better than a other player in simular position, who are on the "paper" better player?

Any Thoughts?

Happens to me frequently. If you post pictures of the players in question it would probably help you a lot to see what people suggest as reasons for what you have identified.

[milnerpoint]

Attributes count, not CA/PA as a number, id much rather have a consistent 160CA player than an inconsistent 190CA player.

[stevie_G_32201]

Attributes count, not CA/PA as a number, id much rather have a consistent 160CA player than an inconsistent 190CA player.

Indeed, consistency is key.

[rnickster]

Question! - Is the consistency trait something which can be modified through tutoring?

for example, I bought a young defender who has a high PA rating from my scouts but his weakness is inconsistency. I am having Koscielny (best strength in coach report is consistency) tutor him in the hope his consistency will improve?

If this can not be modified then I will steer clear of all inconstant players in the future.

[milnerpoint]

Yes it can be improved upon, up to a certain point, you will never take a player with 1 consistency up to 20, but it can be improved on, im sure......

[rnickster]

I hope so . . . and is this the right method to get it improved? I cant see anything in training that could imfluence this trait. . .

[bigdunk]

Attributes count, not CA/PA as a number, id much rather have a consistent 160CA player than an inconsistent 190CA player.

It depends on how well you're using the players strengths as well. A CA190 pacy goal poacher will be no use if you play long balls at his head, whereas a CA160 genuine Target Man will be much more effective.

[V50]

Consistency improves with age, but IMO consistency once above 8 doesn't seem to have a major effect on ratings for me - I had similar CA players in FM2009 with different consistencies (8 v 15) and the former performed better. I always thought of consistency modifying the variance of a players skills, but leaving the average rating unaffected - could be wrong though given values have a maximum

[milnerpoint]

I hope so . . . and is this the right method to get it improved? I cant see anything in training that could imfluence this trait. . .

As far as im aware its a combination, of playing well, and tutoring, there was a thread on this a while ago so im going by memory here, which in my case, is not always that good!

[milnerpoint]

It depends on how well you're using the players strengths as well. A CA190 pacy goal poacher will be no use if you play long balls at his head, whereas a CA160 genuine Target Man will be much more effective.

Very very true!

[underkiller]

PA is irrelevant to current performance.

CA is relevant, but a player with a "better" spread of attributes in key areas can perform better than a player with higher CA but more "wasted" points on less key attributes. This would be especially true of the poacher role.

One other point is that certain attributes do not take up CA points. The main relevant one is consistency. A player of 155 CA with 20 consistency will be better over a season than a 170 CA player with 1 consistency (All else being equal).

Hmm interesting...

I have this man, he has 177 potensial, put he doesnt play good at all:

1.

Weakast area: "Consistency..... Kara have only 147 PA and he has much better performances than HAM.

[underkiller]

After 10 games in PL:

Every second match he gets 5.5 or 5.3

Do you think this is because of the weakest area consistency?

Here is Kara who has only 147 CA. and performing better than Ham.

[V50]

I'm guessing they're CD? If so, I think the very low aggression and relatively poor jumping of the former player really hinders their performance, as compared to Kara. Not sure if he'll ever play amazing you might want to look to sell him for big money in the future if he continues to play badly. He can't really play well as a ball-playing defender either... A repurposed DM would still not see much use due to low aggression. Really without that aggression I think he'll never play to how good he should be.

[JamesB]

As far as im aware its a combination, of playing well, and tutoring, there was a thread on this a while ago so im going by memory here, which in my case, is not always that good!

Tutoring does not improve consistency at all.

[milnerpoint]

Fair enough, i did say i could be wrong

[underkiller]

I'm guessing they're CD? If so, I think the very low aggression and relatively poor jumping of the former player really hinders their performance, as compared to Kara. Not sure if he'll ever play amazing you might want to look to sell him for big money in the future if he continues to play badly. He can't really play well as a ball-playing defender either... A repurposed DM would still not see much use due to low aggression. Really without that aggression I think he'll never play to how good he should be.

Yes both dc

[oneronaldo]

With only 3 in Aggression for a CB, he would make Kara look like the Kraken. No wonder he is getting 5.5s, might as well playing him as the Covering defender.

[Domus Clamantium]

With only 3 in Aggression for a CB, he would make Kara look like the Kraken. No wonder he is getting 5.5s, might as well playing him as the Covering defender.

13 concentration is also a cause for concern

[Auqakuh]

I think consistency improves if the player plays more consistently, IE event-driven improvement. What that would mean is that you need to inspire him, consistently, to raise his game above his own inclinations.

This is why you can get players with low consistency playing well. Good team talks and interactions and so on - or just a really good system that suits their play.