Transfers - discussion on the mechanics and issues .

[YKW]

None of them captured my imagination either, they are all players who I would scroll straight past. Perhaps unwisely! Who knows! Anything could happen in this game of guess how good the player is!

[Cougar2010]

None of them captured my imagination either, they are all players who I would scroll straight past. Perhaps unwisely! Who knows! Anything could happen in this game of guess how good the player is!

It might also highlight to SI how we as users scout, value & rate players aside from stars which could help them make it better in the future.

[YKW]

It might also highlight to SI how we as users scout, value & rate players aside from stars which could help them make it better in the future.

Excellent point I agree 100%. Hopefully a lot of people give their input.

[edj]

I'd take a shot at Ouattara at that price; inconsistency aside, he's got potential as an inside forward with nice acceleration already and flair, technique and dribbling pretty good for his age.

The others, probably not.

Generally I play with a house rule of not buying anyone younger than 18. Just seems like the right way to play.

[Ylt]

This thread has taken a very interesting development. Some guy's suggested game/challenge is a brilliant idea. It'd be good fun getting plenty of people to participate and it has the potential to be a very constructive process as Cougar mentioned.

[Some Guy!]

Some Guy!, would it be possible for you to include the positional abilities screen of the player, such that we can see his detailed footedness and preferred moves?

In addition to this, are all of the reports by the same scout and from a similar date? It would be useful to batch scout a group of players for this game with one scout to keep these variables the same. If you haven't already of course!

I will happily play along with this, from the perspective of which of the players you list I would be most and least interested in signing. I haven't been exposed to any CA or PA figures while playing FM15 so I won't be trying to guess these exactly. Others may feel they can though.

How can we judge my "correctness?"

I will happily concede to you on your preferred issue of the certainty of the PA figure if I can't even get close, and the majority of others don't either.

The other element to this discussion would relate to whether we can choose the best players with hindsight, i.e. we may have missed out on a 180PA player, however this player is equal in CA to a fully developed 160PA player, who we preferred on the basis of our speculation about his development rate.

To achieve this we could decide on our shortlist of players and you could transfer them to your united squad in exchange for other youth players, and then simulate the game 10 years and see how our choices look in that context. If we were to have made consistently decent choices, then would you be willing to concede my separate point to yours, in essence regarding the unrealistically low level of risk in signing young players?

In all seriousness this could make a great game, we could play it like a kind of stock market where you post screens of young players and we each decide which we want shares in, then we see who did the best and repeat. For this particular experiment they should probably all be at the same club though.

EDIT: I also think that my earlier suggestion of the players to be guessed being picked in some random way or by a neutral third party would be good. Also the CA/PA figures should be PM'd to someone when the players go up. Don't take this personally Some Guy!, I was suggesting these measures when you weren't even involved

They're the same scout done around the same time (so, a day or two apart). I forgot to include footedness, I figured the position map with the colours would have gotten the point across about how good they were at each position. So in any future attempt that should be done too.

The key really is the method of choose the players. The method was simply getting the same scout to continue to scout a bunch of 4.5 black star players for a further 3 months, then picking the ones that came the most recommended. I might post a few more with a part of the information screen included as well using the same method. I'll also post a further image on imgur which includes the PAs of each of the players, so it can be posted at a later date and show that it had indeed been posted there at the same time as the images were.

The of how we rate. I don't know, maybe just rate them out of 5 of how good you think their potential is. Check that against the in game potential, then we might be able to simulate the game world and see how they actually do (there's no point moving them to Man United in the game, as I'm not taking care of it at all). Comparing them against eachother, their potential and how they do in an AI world should be a decent method of reading how well they'd develop though, as even if they don't develop as well as a human might have done, each of these players would have the same "in a fully AI gameworld" conditions to deal with. So comparing their development to eachother would give the picture of if they developed well or not, along side the potential.

I wouldn't take this first one of four too seriously though. Just have a crack at rating them out of 5, I'll post the result, then we'll get on to a larger set. Maybe write of the list of the original set in order how of good you think they could be.

Name: Youssou Diallo

Club: Auxerre

Attributes: Here

Scout Screen: Here

First Negotiation: £12.5 million

Will Accept: £6.5 million

Name: Pierre Bong

Club: Nantes

Attributes: Here

Scout Screen: Here

First Negotiation: £16.25 million

Will Accept: £8.25 million

Name: Moussa Ouattara

Club: Furth

Attributes: Here

Scout Screen: Here

First Negotiation: £7.25 million

Will Accept: £3.6 million

Name: Jeremy Scherrer

Club: Sochaux

Attributes: Here

Scout Screen: Here

First Negotiation: £9.5 million

Will Accept: £5 million

[HUNT3R]

I'll have a crack at this.

#4 - Sherrer - 5/5 PA

I like this guy. He's a DM and he has good physical attributes for the position already, with just his strength needing a decent boost.

I like his mental stats too. Bravery, decisions, concentration etc all good and needed for a DM.

Big match player + he's consistent.

Slight adaptability and injury issues.

I think his PA is very high. Would I buy him? At 5m, sure, knowing that I'm taking a risk because of injury proneness.

#1- Diallo - 4/5 PA

He has good foundations to make a great player. For such a young lad, he already has good acceleration, pace, technique, vision and passing.

He's fairly inconsistent, which is a pity, but hopefully that'll improve over time. He loves big matches though.

Would I buy him? At 6.5m, yes. I'd retrain him as an AML with the idea of playing him as an AP/A.

#3 - Ouattara - 3/5 PA

This player I had difficulty rating. He has comparatively okay attributes, but is weak in concentration, positioning and anticipation.

On top of that, he's fairly inconsistent and might have adaptability issues.

He's cheap at 3.6m, but would I buy him? No.

#2 - Bong - 1/5 PA

I didn't rate him highly at all. He's going to need to be very specialised to be decent at the top level. I can see him being a poacher and at 135-145 PA and specialised attributes (which, for a poacher aren't many) he could have been decent.

What weighs him down more, is that he's fairly inconsistent and not a performer in the big matches.

At 8.5m, I'd be crazy to buy him.

[BiggusD]

Well, I'll stick 4 up to start with, then I need to go for a day, but I should be able to do more later:

Name: Youssou Diallo

Club: Auxerre

Attributes: Here

Scout Screen: Here

First Negotiation: £12.5 million

Will Accept: £6.5 million

Name: Pierre Bong

Club: Nantes

Attributes: Here

Scout Screen: Here

First Negotiation: £16.25 million

Will Accept: £8.25 million

Name: Moussa Ouattara

Club: Furth

Attributes: Here

Scout Screen: Here

First Negotiation: £7.25 million

Will Accept: £3.6 million

Name: Jeremy Scherrer

Club: Sochaux

Attributes: Here

Scout Screen: Here

First Negotiation: £9.5 million

Will Accept: £5 million

The information on the scouting screen that is cut off is things like "extremely interested to join the club", "could become a good player for such and such a position", "they would accept such and such a bid etc.". No consequential data has been excluded there.

These were from a few more months of scouting. I won't be able to make any more today, but I might look into a better method for doing these if they're actually something interesting.

None of them caught my interest, given that they wouldn't fit well into my tactic even if they developed a lot. Most of them had poor Aggression, Bravery , Team Work and Work Rate. The striker was of the unintelligent poacher-type, nothing special. Can find hundreds of those every game, regardless of potential. The defensive midfielders were of the "wet noodle" type - lethargic and pretty bog standard regens. The attacking midfielder would have a long way to go before he could even start for my Vetusta team (Oviedo game 2031).

This is assuming world class competition in the first team, though.

[Cougar2010]

Personally speaking I wouldn't be that interested in any of those four for my team though

Ok here is a more detailed breakdown from me:

Diallo

Easily a midfield playmaker, excellent touch & technique + good base key attributes + good physicals. Teamwork lets him down as does the defensive side as shown by the "cons" horrible marking & tackling.

Mentality: Determined, professional, likes big matches and can adapt to the country. Just inconsistency letting him down here, he is fairly inconsistent and it can improve but it would be a risk, especially given his role is a key one in a team.

Future: Will probably have a good career towards the top end of football, a regular in the international squad but maybe falling just short of being a star (Think Youri Djorkaeff rather than Zinedine Zidane).

Would I be interested? I like my midfielders to tackle & mark to a base level and his teamwork needs work. Would depend on which team I was and what other options I had. £6.5m would go a long way towards a more developed player but if I did buy him I would need to make sure I had other players around him to cover his weaknesses.

Rating: 4/5 for his future, 3/5 for my team.

Bong

A limited striker, can only really play the poacher role to any decent level and even then mentals aren't great (Anticipation, composure & concentration). He can't pass, no vision & no teamwork.

Mentality: Determined, professional & can adapt to the country. Lots of downsides though, fairly inconsistent, doesn't like big matches & no intelligence.

Future: Needs lots of work but has the right attitude to improve and is young. Don't think he'll ever reach his PA and I suspect he'll end up bouncing around low top tier, top of second tier clubs.

Would I be interested? Not a chance, too many better players around. Even if he came through my youth intake I would probably look to cash him in.

Rating: 1/5 for future, 0/5 for me.

Ouattara

A "run at the defence" type of AMC. Decent physicals & mentals aside from anticipation but the technicals let him down a little and he might get knocked off the ball too easily.

Mentality: Determined, professional, resolute personality & likes big matches. Fairly inconsistent & might struggle to adapt the downside.

Future: Has the mentality to succeed and inconsistency can improve. Will probably have a good career maybe in & out of International squads.

Would I be interested? Mentality is right but his role isn't, I don't often use AMCs in my formations and even less often this type. I would need to build a team around him to be worth it and he just isn't quite good enough to do that. I would probably file him to look at again in a few years.

Rating: Future 3/5, my team 1/5.

Scherrer

Looks to be a good DM. Can pass, tackle with some good mentals & physicals. Strength needs work while marking, positioning & teamwork are slightly low.

Mentality: Determined, consistent & likes big matches. Lacks professionalism, might struggle to adapt & a little injury prone the downsides.

Future: With some tutoring he could turn into a very good player if he doesn't get hampered by injuries. If injuries are bad he should still have a decent career, if they aren't he could well be a regular international depending on the manager.

Would I be interested? I glossed over him a bit last night but with a little work he could be a good buy. If I was a French club I would probably take a risk but I suspect I could find better options in other countries.

Rating: Future 4/5, My team French Club 4/5, other 3/5.

[Cougar2010]

Just wanted to add another post here.

I actually found rating the players more difficult than I expected and I want to explain why.

Basically it comes down to being put on the spot as none of those players are ones that I would be looking to sign in my saves. The transfer decisions you make in a save have a starting point of which club you are and how good your current players are. After that its a case of scouting, coming up with a shortlist of options and maybe signing one of them.

Using England as an example if I was a mid/low premiership club (and even if those players were English) I wouldn't take much notice of them because the prices are too high for their level of CA. With a transfer budget of between say £10m & £30m I'm not going to spend more than say £1m-2m on a player who can't play a role in the first team squad. If you manage a bigger club, say Spurs or Liverpool I might have a bigger budget (£50m-£80m?) but the players I would want to buy would cost more so I still wouldn't want to spend more than a couple of million on a player who won't be in the first team for at least three seasons (maybe closer to five).

This leaves the really big clubs with money to burn but even then with the pick of players I would expect I would find better for the money, players that could be an effective member of the first team within 1-2 seasons.

Maybe I just play FM different to others but a player has to be really special for me to consider buying him at that age. By the time they develop into anything useful I will have probably moved onto another club anyway.

[HUNT3R]

Yeah, I also went in with the mentality of being a big club with 25m+ to spend, so 5m on a youngster wouldn't hurt too much.

[Some Guy!]

Maybe I just play FM different to others but a player has to be really special for me to consider buying him at that age. By the time they develop into anything useful I will have probably moved onto another club anyway.

This is kind of the point though, I think I can recall maybe one 15/16 year old player who tempted me to sign them in the last few FMs, and I still waited until they were older and showed a bit more. It's just not something that's overly realistic in all but the most exceptional cases, and in those cases if it's a big club they're at it does seem reasonable that they wouldn't want to sell.

That's kind of the point of this kind of test though.

I've looked at their potential now, but I'll reveal that later, I want to simulate a number of years and see how they go.

[Some Guy!]

I'm a bit disappointed that Ylt and Äktsjon Männ haven't had a crack, they've talked some big game, I was looking forward to them having a punt.

Anyone else want to have a go before the results are posted for this one? I might wait a day with only a handful of goes.

[dieu]

I'll give it a go... Would I sign them for my Man Utd team?

Diallo:

I like his attribute spread. I use DPL/S in my tactic and most of his attributes fit that role. The most important attribute I look for in a DPL is good vision and decision making. He has both. He is also an ok passer of the ball and shows good technique. Good stamina, good strength. I like him. Ideally he would have better teamwork, but based on his other stats I am willing to ignore that one.

Don't like his inconsistency, but since he is professional, adaptable and likes big matches I would ignore that and sign him anyway. Hopefully I can give him the right tutor and remove the inconsistency.

Id rate him 4 out of 5 and at 6,5 mill I would probably take a chance.

Bong:

Good finishing, but composure lets him down. Also since I like my strikers to be both creators as well as goal scorers his poor passing, vision and decision making means that he would never fit in my team.

When you take into account that he is also inconsistent and does not like big games he can be as professional and determined as can be. I still would not sign him.

1 star out of 5.

Scherrer:

Good physical stats. Like his decision making and he has alright passing, but I feel that there is just to many stats that need improving in order to fit my HB role. Even though he has good determination and is consistent he has low professionalism and is injury prone, making me feel like there is a chance that he will not reach his potential. At 5 mill I would not take a chance. If I had money to spare, I would probably go for better options.

2 stars out of 5.

Ouattara:

I do use a Shadow Striker and it is suggested that he is best in that role. I don't really care about the low physical stats because I look at the shadow striker more in the Paul Scholes/Frank Lampard arrive late in the box type of role.I tend to look for more intelligent players instead of brute force. He has decent finishing, composure and decision making, but he has really low anticipation, and that is the stat I feel is the most important for the type of player that I want. However He is determined, professional and is a big game player. That makes me confident that he can improve well, and his inconsistency can hopefully be dealt with by tutoring. At 3,6 mill I would certainly take the chance.

Rated 4 out of 5 stars.

[themadsheep2001]

I'll have a go at this. My reply will be edited into this post.

Name: Youssou Diallo

Club: Auxerre

For a central mid, his lack of defensive capability and team work is a concern for me immediate, as this would weaken my central partnership. He's also inconsistent. That said he's a fairly explosive big game player. I would buy him, and set Mata as his tutor, and work on his dribbling with the aim of turning him into a running playmaker (would teach him looks for pass rather than shot) and probably train him as an AML.

I'd rate him 3.5 out of 5.

Name: Pierre Bong

Club: Nantes

Not my kind of striker, would move on.

1 out of 5

Name: Moussa Ouattara

Not convinced on him, but his versatility would let me take a punt on him. This fits the various formations I play.

2.5 out of 5

Name: Jeremy Scherrer

Club: Sochaux

Has too many starting flaws for me. I wouldnt make a move for him.

1 out of 5

[sirgiorgio]

The AI receives the same information you do from coaches. They get an idea, some gold stars, some black stars. Sometimes they can be quite wrong and rate players with 140 potential as though they are the next Messi and slap those £40+ million price tags on them. They price they ask is based on a large number of factors though, not least the stature and finances of a club.

But why do they think a player will be the next Messi? Do they have a crystal ball? I, personally, would look at his CA (= key attributes for his position) and his age. Period. Compare the four screenshots to Martin Ødegaard at the beginning of the game: none of them is remotely as good as Ødegaard. So why do your scouts say they're going to be stars? Their predictions may be ridiculously wrong, but the point is, they shouldn't have made such predictions in the first place. Unless they see, or pretend to see, something that we don't...

Ditto for asking prices - in general, a 16-year-old with CA 100 should "cost more" than a 26-year-old (same club, same contract, same CA...). But for the selling club and the visiting scouts the 16-year-old is just a teenager who is CURRENTLY better than most of the players of the same age. They can't know whether or not this teenager will be one of the best players of his generation. If a crazy manager wants to sign the player, the selling club can include clauses such as % of next sale, buy back price, X million after X games, etc. but all in all, they are selling a player with CA 100, and that's how he should be valued. For both the selling and the buying club.

Looking over them now. I don't like the look of the Monaco defender as he can't head, and has quite low concentration and decisions. One of them's a winger with 1 for finishing, inconsistent and poor decision making. The one at Koln is inconsistent and selfish. At that age though I tend to just watch and wait.

And these guys are highly rated by your scouts/their clubs? Why? A defender who "can't head, and has quite low concentration and decisions" should be seen as pure trash no matter if he is 15 or 35. The fact that a scout/coach "sees some potential" (whether they are right or wrong) makes me believe there's something wrong in the way "judging potential" works in the game. Gamers know there is a thing called PA, so the game makes you think the scouts know a player's PA. But hey, scouts can be wrong so they actually don't know anything about actual PA. "I know you know, so I pretend I know what you know". Wouldn't it be better to remove "judging PA" altogether? "This guy is quality, and can still improve. Maybe". And that's it.

[HUNT3R]

The judging players aspect would make for a good forum "game" in a separate thread. I'm itching to know what PA values these 4 players have.

[YKW]

They're the same scout done around the same time (so, a day or two apart). I forgot to include footedness, I figured the position map with the colours would have gotten the point across about how good they were at each position. So in any future attempt that should be done too.

The key really is the method of choose the players. The method was simply getting the same scout to continue to scout a bunch of 4.5 black star players for a further 3 months, then picking the ones that came the most recommended. I might post a few more with a part of the information screen included as well using the same method. I'll also post a further image on imgur which includes the PAs of each of the players, so it can be posted at a later date and show that it had indeed been posted there at the same time as the images were.

The of how we rate. I don't know, maybe just rate them out of 5 of how good you think their potential is. Check that against the in game potential, then we might be able to simulate the game world and see how they actually do (there's no point moving them to Man United in the game, as I'm not taking care of it at all). Comparing them against eachother, their potential and how they do in an AI world should be a decent method of reading how well they'd develop though, as even if they don't develop as well as a human might have done, each of these players would have the same "in a fully AI gameworld" conditions to deal with. So comparing their development to eachother would give the picture of if they developed well or not, along side the potential.

I wouldn't take this first one of four too seriously though. Just have a crack at rating them out of 5, I'll post the result, then we'll get on to a larger set. Maybe write of the list of the original set in order how of good you think they could be.

Good job. On footedness, this is one of the first things I look at in a player, both because I think two footed players are better in FM, and also because I love two footed players in real life. Doing it for a future attempt is good.

Your scouting method is good and I think the imgur idea is a good control.

On moving them to United: the idea here is that there are many factors that affect the development of a player, most notably training facilities. I also think this is one of the most significant factors. I still think moving the players to United is a good idea whether you are taking charge or not, as it would keep more of the variables of player development consistent. Some players may end up leaving on loan or getting injured unluckily or whatever, but overall things would be more equal. In your test as it stands, comparing the players to each other wouldn't tell us much, as the level of facilities would differ drastically. This is why I also recommended swapping the players for similar players in the United youth team, to keep the first team opportunities as consistent as is possible without you being in charge. I still think these two things should be done in future attempts.

I'll post my thoughts on the players also, I'll get to it now.

[YKW]

Youssou Diallo MC AMC

Just looking at him doesn’t impress me. If he had a good weak foot? Maybe I would cut him a bit of slack. He is not the kind of player that I would want playing in my central midfield for obvious reasons like his teamwork, bravery and tackling. If he came through my youth system I wouldn’t be excited. I would be scrolling past, even with that scout report.

I pretty much never sign inconsistent players, so this would be a deal breaker for me.

He has u21 caps, which makes me think his CA is high compared even to some older players. Could he have a preferred move or a decent weak foot?

His potential is rated as being high, but I think that Diallo could be the kind of player who is good for his age but relatively close to his limit. He has decent determination, and professionalism, which I think could be making the scout overrate his potential, in combination with his higher CA?

Also, I would be suspicious if Auxerre didn’t try to extort me, I have a really bad record with them and OL for good players.

Pierre Bong ST

He is also inconsistent so it would be a no from me. He also has good determination and professionalism, so I think he could be being overrated too. If it was a youth striker I was after I would be shocked if I couldn’t find someone better than him. Bonus points for having a funny name though, so if I could get him for free I might.

Moussa Ouattara

Also inconsistent so would scroll on when I saw that, if I hadn’t already from just looking at him.

His stats look like he has one of the lowest CAs, and his wages are the cheapest and he is actually only being rated at half star CA. Decent Professionalism and determination, so again I think he is being overrated. If he is being overrated from a lower starting point then could there be the possibility that he has one of the highest PAs? Germany is always a place where I cannot sign the best youngsters if I identify them, so I would be suspicious about the relatively low asking price.

Jeremy Scherrer DM

He is injury prone, which is a disaster from my perspective and I wouldn’t sign him based on this.

I think he is clearly one of a very common type of player in the game, the low jumping, incredibly weak DM, a type that I don’t like and I probably would be turned off by this.

He has some decent attributes in some places, especially his decisions, which is a big bonus for me.

He is very determined, likes big matches and is consistent, all pluses for me.

If I HAD to order them for CA and PA I would perhaps go with this:

For CA:

Diallo

-

-

Sherrer

Bong

-

Outtaro

And for PA, if pushed, I would go for

Sherrer

-

Outtara

Diallo

-

Bong

The spaces indicate how I think the figures could work together, eg for PA Sherrer is better than Outtara by more than Outtara is better than Diallo. No idea of what the figures could be as I’m not really in tune with that, but hopefully that’s good enough.

The key point for me is that all of the players had enough question marks over their development, by being inconsistent or injury prone, to put me off them all, in a similar way to what I have been talking about in this thread. Even if I felt one or any of them had a pretty high PA, I still feel confident that with enough searching I could find a lower PA player who will end up better.

None of these players had the “it” factor which excites me enough to try and sign them, or even scout them for a long period.

How did we do?

[Cougar2010]

The judging players aspect would make for a good forum "game" in a separate thread. I'm itching to know what PA values these 4 players have.

See thats the thing, I couldn't care less what their PA is.

I never look at it in game and never give it a second thought. Players play & improve, the only time I take note is when my coaches say they think a player is close to their limit.

[Wavelberry]

PA isn't the be all and end all is it either? I remember that one my best players who stayed with me from the Conference to Prem only had a PA of 110 when I checked and I was gobsmacked as he was pretty much a machine season after season.

[Dr. Hook]

PA isn't the be all and end all is it either? I remember that one my best players who stayed with me from the Conference to Prem only had a PA of 110 when I checked and I was gobsmacked as he was pretty much a machine season after season.

If they have the right attributes for your system, and your system is well-designed to begin with, you don't need the high PA necessarily. Good job on pointing that out, though in this case the discussion is about whether or not it is too easy to identify future stars.

[HUNT3R]

PA isn't the be all and end all is it either? I remember that one my best players who stayed with me from the Conference to Prem only had a PA of 110 when I checked and I was gobsmacked as he was pretty much a machine season after season.

I agree. In this case, I rated Bong to have the lowest PA. As a poacher, he doesn't even need a high PA to be a success. He'd have a high CA for his role, so he'd be okay. So he'd be a decent prospect, but not at 8.5m and not with his inconsistency and big match issues.

[CaptainPlanet]

If they have the right attributes for your system, and your system is well-designed to begin with, you don't need the high PA necessarily. Good job on pointing that out, though in this case the discussion is about whether or not it is too easy to identify future stars.

One other point I'd make on the future stars thing, is in this issue I would class becoming a future star as them obtaining a high CA as opposed to actually performing well or having a good mix of attributes.

[Some Guy!]

One other point I'd make on the future stars thing, is in this issue I would class becoming a future star as them obtaining a high CA as opposed to actually performing well or having a good mix of attributes.

The entire basis of the original discussion was that it was hard to sign high-PA players because the big clubs overvalue them, and that it was reasonable for the human player to know who was high PA because it was "so obvious". It was never about youngsters with good attribute balance, hidden and personality traints, as they in general aren't as likely to have such ridiculous asking prices.

But why do they think a player will be the next Messi? Do they have a crystal ball? I, personally, would look at his CA (= key attributes for his position) and his age. Period. Compare the four screenshots to Martin Ødegaard at the beginning of the game: none of them is remotely as good as Ødegaard. So why do your scouts say they're going to be stars? Their predictions may be ridiculously wrong, but the point is, they shouldn't have made such predictions in the first place. Unless they see, or pretend to see, something that we don't...

As with the the discussion of asking prices earlier in the thread. How do you look at their CA? All you've got is their attributes and the PCA (what the coaches think their CA is).

They based their readings of a player on the PPA (star rating for perceived potential) when it comes to potential, and they do quite often get it wrong. As mentioned in this thread, you can see the AI value a 16 year old 130 PA player in the £30+ million market, because they don't get a full picture.

As for comparing them to Odegaard, it's a matter of now against then. A lot of young players don't really hit their stride until their around 20-23, Odegaard is very developed for his age. Potential and how developed they are now are two very different things.

In terms of how they make the predictions, they actually do it exactly as we do, both for players at their clubs and found by their scouts it seems. They get a PPA (the scouting stars for potential) and base their predictions off that.

Ditto for asking prices - in general, a 16-year-old with CA 100 should "cost more" than a 26-year-old (same club, same contract, same CA...). But for the selling club and the visiting scouts the 16-year-old is just a teenager who is CURRENTLY better than most of the players of the same age. They can't know whether or not this teenager will be one of the best players of his generation. If a crazy manager wants to sign the player, the selling club can include clauses such as % of next sale, buy back price, X million after X games, etc. but all in all, they are selling a player with CA 100, and that's how he should be valued. For both the selling and the buying club.

16 year old players who seemingly have the potential to be the best of their generation create a lot of hype, but they don't tend to move between big clubs. You'll occasionally see a transfer like Walcott's (modern equivalent of ~£17 million based on % of transfer record), but there are virtually no examples of top youngsters in that age group moving between big clubs. The game simulates this by those clubs demanding huge amounts for their services, and this includes players that might not be very good. As shown elsewhere, even clubs like Zenit wanted £40+ million for 16 year olds who were never going to be "top class". They had the potential to be "good", but never truly world class. Here are

Zenit want £45 million for a 143 PA player

Zenit want £42 million for a 157 PA player

Zenit want £43 million for a 138 PA player

For context, they'd probably accept about £26-30 million for them. Keep in mind, this is a trend that continues in general.

And these guys are highly rated by your scouts/their clubs? Why? A defender who "can't head, and has quite low concentration and decisions" should be seen as pure trash no matter if he is 15 or 35. The fact that a scout/coach "sees some potential" (whether they are right or wrong) makes me believe there's something wrong in the way "judging potential" works in the game. Gamers know there is a thing called PA, so the game makes you think the scouts know a player's PA. But hey, scouts can be wrong so they actually don't know anything about actual PA. "I know you know, so I pretend I know what you know". Wouldn't it be better to remove "judging PA" altogether? "This guy is quality, and can still improve. Maybe". And that's it.

Have you ever seen a young player come through a club and the hype their generate? Take Miles Addison for example. A good young player at Derby, was centrehalf convereted to midfield. Bull in a chinashop type. Did the job when they needed someone to give some oompf in midfield. He always had some obvious weaknesses though, he was a bit slow, a bit hard n the tackle, and not a great passer. Regardless, he looked good at what he could do, and people assumed he's "improve" in the other areas and become a top end player (in a few Football Managers he was given a good enough -# potential to become an England international). Ultimately he didn't though, and he's in fact regressed a bit (lost a bit more speed, become stronger) following some injuries and now his career has well and truly stalled. But that's the kind of thing you see. The biggest cliché with young players is that they're "weak on the ball" or "not experienced on the pitch", which generally translates to key weaknesses that people feel will be fixed in their development.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

In any case. It seems all that are keen to have a pop have had a pop now. Still disappointed in Ylt and Äktsjon Männ, but looks like they weren't game for it.

Anyhow, I also want to put up some pictures of them as how their careers have gone, but to start with, just their PAs:

Youssou Diallo: 173

Pierre Bong: 157

Moussa Outtara: 114

Jeremy Scherrer: 183

I have actually really liked reading people's opinions on the players. It's actually a really good read, and they have all been fair judgements of the players.

A standardised version of this with as much information about the players as possible would be fun.

From memory, the simulation of their careers so far has them at about 21, and if I recall Diallo is at Hull, went for a pretty penny too. Scherrer is at Man City (again, a pretty penny), I think Bong is still at Nantes and Outtara is in the Furth Reserves.

[Dr. Hook]

And I'll add, there is a great feature in FM called "train to new position." When you get a young player who has a lot apparent potential and some good skills, but not for the position he plays, train to one better suited, and you'll make a great player out of him.

But seriously, this has turned into a cool thread.

[dieu]

I think we have highlighted that it is not as easy to judge talent as some have claimed here,

Looking at the ratings we gave it's only Hunt3r (Maybe YKW also, but he did not give a number so hard to say) that has rated Sherrer as 5 out of 5, and two us have rated Outtara to have higher potential then Sherrer. Actually all of us except themadsheep rated Outarra much higher then we should. Furthermore, all of us rated Outtara to have much higher potential then Bong when it really should have been the other way around.

However I would like to add on my part that all these players had some kind of flaw in their personality so I would probably go for other targets that are rated as high but don't have the same flaws.

[HUNT3R]

Yeah, I thinkeveryone overestimated Ouattara, but none of us would have bought him or Bong. Overall, that's still good enough, imo.

Sherrer I liked, but he's the injury prone player, so there is some risk involved. A risk I'd take, but others wouldn't. He was rated as fairly injury prone, so not a disaster case, which is why I'd risk it, if I had the money.

[dieu]

Yeah, I thinkeveryone overestimated Ouattara, but none of us would have bought him or Bong.

Not true, I would have bought him (To my embarrassment) if I lacked options with better personality traits.

[Cougar2010]

Whilst on one hand seeing the PAs is interesting it doesn't give the complete picture at all IMO.

Diallo looks like the baseline test, good CA at a young age, highish PA and I was more or less accurate with my estimate of him just falling short of being a true star.

Outtara is a player who will hit his peak early in life and I'm not surprised we all overestimated him to some degree. A decent CA for his age and a good personality you would expect him to keep improving at a good rate as do the FM scouts. Much like many players have IRL though he will hit a glass ceiling at 18-21yo and not improve much further.

Bong's PA is ok for the role he plays but I still don't think he'll ever reach it and don't think he'll have a good career. AI teams will sign him & play him but this just highlights an area that can be improved by SI in that the AI teams look too much at CA/PPA and not enough at other areas like a human does.

Sherrer is a good player, no doubt about it and its proven by his PA but what lets him down is away from his PA - Injuries, lack of professionalism and adapability. Like I said in my estimate if he stays mostly injury free and gets some tutoring to improve the weak areas he will be a top player but if injuries hit hard he'll never reach that PA.

[CaptainPlanet]

Is PPA affected by CA? If it is maybe that's where it needs tweaking so a low CA player, with low ambition, low determination, shouldn't ever really be touted as a future star by a scout. Regardless of PA.

[BiggusD]

In Real Life: Potential is how good a youngster is compared to the expectations of football players his age, "tempered" by the reports of his ambition to succeed and willingness to train and learn.

In FM: The same as the above, except quality is measured in numbers and we have scouts doing the work for us (they quantify both current ability and estimate the potential "end result" based on the quantified ambition to succeed and willingness to train and learn).

I think that it is good that we have the scouts doing that work in FM, because it speeds up the whole looking-for-suitable-players thing. The question is whether the JPP is too accurate, and I feel that it isn't. I have to use my judgement on all the 3,5-5 star potential kids to figure out who is going to be a good player for me and who won't cut it. It is simply not true that every 15-year-old with 5-star potential is a sure-fire investment. Not even 1 in 10 becomes world class, and I have succeeded with around half of the ones I sign, although I wouldn't call all of the ones I succeeded with world-class simply because they didn't have enough PA to go all the way in the first place.

There are two failures to communicate when we speak about the way the transfer market is arranged to stop the human tendency to hoard talent:

1. When one person says "world class", my experience is that a picture of that player often shows that he is not anywhere near world-class. We have different ideas of what it means to be world-class. I have four or five world-class players in my FM14 Oviedo team, and two of them are actually better than both Messi and Ronaldo because they both have weaknesses while my fictitious players don't. That is where I set the bar for "world class", especially considering that even though SI's soak tests show that CA values do not drop (or even increase) in the big leagues a few decades in. But looking at the attributes of the players in the competing teams I would say that the bottom half teams in BBVA by 2031 are more comparable to bottom-half Adelante teams of 2014. They are all truly awful, and Real and Barca's teams are nowhere near 2014 quality - but I suspect that CA hasn't actually dropped that much.

2. There is a difference between a top team owning a great prospect for the future, and a team from a smaller league. At least in real life. Now that Ødegaard plays for Real Madrid nobody would bother trying to sign him presently. I don't think Schalke, Ajax or Southampton feel obligated to let a young, highly regarded talent go to a bigger club to let him attempt fulfilling his dreams there, either. Clubs in smaller nations, however, do feel obligated to let their best players go when a bigger club abroad comes for him. It is the wise thing to do both for humane reasons and because it is in the club's best interest to show other young prospects that they are indeed a stepping stone. In FM, however, there is no such distinction. A 5-star potential youngster playing in the Romanian first division, will not be for sale and the club will likely reject a £30m bid for him, even though that amount of money would actually buy the whole league system. In comparsion, let me remind you that Ødegaard left Strømsgodset for approx £3m. No Norwegian club would ever reject £3m for anyone, regardless of age and future prospect. This is where the system does not reflect reality. It should reflect reality as much as possible, and if that means that you could go and pick up every 3,5-star or better 15-year-old that the game generates as long as they are contracted to a small club from a small nation for a few million pounds at most, then yes that is what should happen and the way it should be. The solution for SI is to make sure that uncertainty about JCA/JPPA is much more severe in small leagues, simply because being the hottest prospect in Norway for decades, maybe ever, because a few good dribbling raids and assists caused hype in the media - all that is not going to matter much in the BBVA; it does not tell Real Madrid much because the Norwegian Premier is a pretty mediocre league in Europe.

[Koki]

2. There is a difference between a top team owning a great prospect for the future, and a team from a smaller league. At least in real life. Now that Ødegaard plays for Real Madrid nobody would bother trying to sign him presently. I don't think Schalke, Ajax or Southampton feel obligated to let a young, highly regarded talent go to a bigger club to let him attempt fulfilling his dreams there, either. Clubs in smaller nations, however, do feel obligated to let their best players go when a bigger club abroad comes for him. It is the wise thing to do both for humane reasons and because it is in the club's best interest to show other young prospects that they are indeed a stepping stone. In FM, however, there is no such distinction. A 5-star potential youngster playing in the Romanian first division, will not be for sale and the club will likely reject a £30m bid for him, even though that amount of money would actually buy the whole league system. In comparsion, let me remind you that Ødegaard left Strømsgodset for approx £3m. No Norwegian club would ever reject £3m for anyone, regardless of age and future prospect. This is where the system does not reflect reality. It should reflect reality as much as possible, and if that means that you could go and pick up every 3,5-star or better 15-year-old that the game generates as long as they are contracted to a small club from a small nation for a few million pounds at most, then yes that is what should happen and the way it should be. The solution for SI is to make sure that uncertainty about JCA/JPPA is much more severe in small leagues, simply because being the hottest prospect in Norway for decades, maybe ever, because a few good dribbling raids and assists caused hype in the media - all that is not going to matter much in the BBVA; it does not tell Real Madrid much because the Norwegian Premier is a pretty mediocre league in Europe.

This!

The problem lies within the scouting. The thing is that in real life no scout would have the idea to scout a 15-year-old that hasn't played a single match at a small club. In FM however, you know all the 5* aged 16 and and let's say 1/4 to 1/2 really become good enough to be backup at a good club (at least CA 140). FM tries to counter-act that with often unrealistic transfer demands for youth players.

In my perfect FM world, scouts would preferably scout players that perform well and you simply wouldn't know about these hidden 5* players aged 16 that don't play regular matches unless you explicitly tell your scout to scout them. Then, you should be able to sign them for relatively little money, because in real life small clubs don't even sell key players for more than 5m and even most bigger clubs wouldn't resist 2-5m for a player who hasn't proven anything. Maybe JPA needs to become a little less accurate to scare off users to simply buy 20 youngsters for 2m. The introduction of the black uncertainty stars has been a very good move in the right direction and I have been led astray by them a few good times

[Cougar2010]

Is PPA affected by CA? If it is maybe that's where it needs tweaking so a low CA player, with low ambition, low determination, shouldn't ever really be touted as a future star by a scout. Regardless of PA.

Obviously I don't know for sure but the way I think it works is:

Scout sees CA (or his version of it) takes age into account and expected rate of improvement up to 25yo (Maybe there are several rates of improvements dependant on other factors) and this gives PPA.

Every so often a player is reviewed and opinion adjusted based on CA/Age/Rate of improvement. Therefore if a player hasn't improved as much as expected in a year his PPA will go down slightly if he has improved ahead of the scale his PPA will increase slightly.

Eventually the PPA & CA merge at around 25yo it seems.

[CaptainPlanet]

Imagine two almost identical youth players at the same club with the same CA, same attributes including hidden ones. But one has 50 more PA. Should a scout given them different potential ratings?

[Cougar2010]

Imagine two almost identical youth players at the same club with the same CA, same attributes including hidden ones. But one has 50 more PA. Should a scout given them different potential ratings?

With identical attributes/hidden attributes at the same club I would say no unless there is a little random included.

Whether they should or not and whether a little random should be included is another matter.

[Cougar2010]

In FM, however, there is no such distinction. A 5-star potential youngster playing in the Romanian first division, will not be for sale and the club will likely reject a £30m bid for him, even though that amount of money would actually buy the whole league system. In comparsion, let me remind you that Ødegaard left Strømsgodset for approx £3m.

That is just simply not true and adds confusion to the discussion.

Sometimes you have to show some patience and wait a little while but Some Guy has already proven that good young players in smaller leagues can be bought for reasonable sums of money. If we use Odegaard as an example here it took a year for a move to be finalised, one of the bigger problems is that many users don't show this patience and expect things to happen immediately.

[Cougar2010]

In FM however, you know all the 5* aged 16 and and let's say 1/4 to 1/2 really become good enough to be backup at a good club (at least CA 140).

How do you know all the 5* 16yos?

The only way that happens is by cheating and bringing outside knowledge into the game world, if you play properly its never an issue.

[Some Guy!]

A 5-star potential youngster playing in the Romanian first division, will not be for sale and the club will likely reject a £30m bid for him, even though that amount of money would actually buy the whole league system. In comparsion, let me remind you that Ødegaard left Strømsgodset for approx £3m. No Norwegian club would ever reject £3m for anyone, regardless of age and future prospect. This is where the system does not reflect reality.

That is categorically untrue, and your references about Odegaard are underlined by the fact that Stromsgodset actually let him go cheaper in the game than they did in real life (~£1 million in game, ~£4 million in the real world). The amount clubs ask for is based massively on their reputation and financial position. Even clubs in the top tier will let their youngsters go much cheaper if they're not one of the "massive" clubs.

That's not to say they won't want a lot, but let's check some examples from the game the players I posted were from (after the simming a bit):

- Rennes want £24m (first response) and will accept £12.5m for their best young player (PA 193) (Predicted to come third in game this season)

- Rosario Central want £4.9m (first response) and will accept £2.6m and a friendly for their best young player (PA 170)

- Dinamo Bucharest want £9.5m (first response) and will accept £5m for their best young player (PA 175) <- Literally a club playing in the Romanian First Division

Basically "every club wants megabucks for their best youngsters" isn't just an exaggeration, it's categorically not the case. The biggest clubs, with money coming out their ears won't sell their best youngsters, but as we've already discussed, that's completely understandable, and nobody has been able to offer a real world example of one actually selling one of their young stars (at the age group discussed). But that's the whole thing though.

Ultimately though, you can get the best youngsters at most clubs quite cheap (£12.5 million is hardly cheap, but Rennes are hardly small, the point there is a top division club in a bigger league).

[sirgiorgio]

Imagine two almost identical youth players at the same club with the same CA, same attributes including hidden ones. But one has 50 more PA. Should a scout given them different potential ratings?

With identical attributes/hidden attributes at the same club I would say no unless there is a little random included.

Whether they should or not and whether a little random should be included is another matter.

Whether they should or not and whether a little random should be included is THE matter, IMO. If JPA = CA + age (+ key hidden attributes), then I don't need a scout to "judge" PA, I just need him to produce enough elements for me to judge: age, position(s), attributes, footedness, PPMs... It's up to me (or whoever is in charge of youth development) to decide that a player "has the potential to be...". Scouts are not supposed to "guess", coaches are not supposed to "guess", they are supposed to express objective judgements, based on a player's CA, and that's it. They may be wrong if (and only if) they don't have enough elements.

At the moment, reports (accurate or not) tell you that "this player is going to be a star, that player isn't". This is wrong both terms of realism, because no scout will risk losing his face for an unknown teenager, and in terms of gameplay, because they make you believe they know what they don't. And, as we see, this "guessing game" has negative effects on other areas of the game (transfer market, squad building).

A report should simply tell you: "compared to other players in your division, this particular player is..."; "compared to other players in your team, this particular player is..."; and, if the player is young enough to play in the youth teams, "compared to other players in your youth teams, this particular player is..."

[dieu]

How about posting a few new players for us to take a stab at? I quite enjoyed the challenge! And who knows, maybe Äktsjon Männ and Y|T will reemerge and back up their boasts?

[YKW]

Interesting results!

Of the 5 people who made assessments of all of the players, 3 correctly identified the highest PA player being Sherrer.

HUNT3R correctly identified Sherrer as having the highest potential, which he indicated as "5/5 PA," and also correctly identified the second highest PA player, Diallo, who he indicated as "4/5 PA." That's pretty spot on.

Cougar2010 correctly identified the highest potential players being Sherrer and Diallo, however he marked them both down as "4/5" rather than ranking 1 above the other. Considering their closeness in PA value this seems reasonable. Second place to Cougar2010.

I was the final person to correctly identify the highest PA player being Sherrer. Third place to me.

Here are some points of interest from my perspective:

1. One interesting thing is that none of us explicitly stated what it is that made us think Sherrer had the highest PA. HUNT3R assessed the attributes and the report and then said "I think his PA is very high." Cougar2010 made a similar assessment and then said "Rating: Future 4/5." I made a similar but more negative assessment and then rated him as the highest potential, again without clear justification why. I'm struggling to explain why in more detail, as it was kind of a feeling.

2. Of the 5 people who made assessments of all the players, all 5 of them incorrectly rated Bong as having the worst potential (joint worst in 1 case.) The consistency in opinion is interesting.

3. Of the 6 people who expressed some opinion, 5 of those had either Sherrer or Diallo (183 and 173 PA) in their priority spot. Myself and HUNT3R clearly ranked Sherrer number 1, Cougar2010 had Sherrer and Diallo ranked equally as his top 2, and dieu and themadsheep2001 both had Diallo as their number 1. If we all had to sign our number 1, then we all would have got a player at least 173PA, aside from edj, who would humourously end up with the worst player at 114 PA. Bear in mind that we had scouts giving us identical potential star ratings for these players.

4. Most of us expressed that we probably wouldn't want any of the players anyway, for various but largely similar reasons. Injury proneness and consistency were two of the most common reasons given. Sherrer is injury prone, although he is at Man City. Diallo is inconsistent. It will be interesting to see which of the two players fulfills their PA most. I'm not convinced either of them would necessarily be better signings than say, a 160PA consistent, injury free player, in terms of their peak CA.

5. If you could somehow find some players who we actually would all want, that could be very interesting. For instance, if all the players were consistent and injury free, to make us feel that they were all players who would be likely to reach their PA under human control.

Overall this is an interesting introduction to Some Guy!s experiment, in the context of his preferred issue of PA being too easy to figure out. Obviously it is still too small a sample to really draw any conclusions from, but hopefully this continues and provides us with some decent evidence.

I would like to reiterate and stand by what I said earlier:

I will happily concede to you on your preferred issue of the certainty of the PA figure if I can't even get close, and the majority of others don't either.

in conjunction with this:

The other element to this discussion would relate to whether we can choose the best players with hindsight, i.e. we may have missed out on a 180PA player, however this player is equal in CA to a fully developed 160PA player, who we preferred on the basis of our speculation about his development rate.

I look forward to this continuing.

[Some Guy!]

How about posting a few new players for us to take a stab at? I quite enjoyed the challenge! And who knows, maybe Äktsjon Männ and Y|T will reemerge and back up their boasts?

I need to head off soon, but I can have a look at it tomorrow.

[Some Guy!]

Interesting results!

Of the 5 people who made assessments of all of the players, 3 correctly identified the highest PA player being Sherrer.

HUNT3R correctly identified Sherrer as having the highest potential, which he indicated as "5/5 PA," and also correctly identified the second highest PA player, Diallo, who he indicated as "4/5 PA." That's pretty spot on.

Cougar2010 correctly identified the highest potential players being Sherrer and Diallo, however he marked them both down as "4/5" rather than ranking 1 above the other. Considering their closeness in PA value this seems reasonable. Second place to Cougar2010.

I was the final person to correctly identify the highest PA player being Sherrer. Third place to me.

Here are some points of interest from my perspective:

1. One interesting thing is that none of us explicitly stated what it is that made us think Sherrer had the highest PA. HUNT3R assessed the attributes and the report and then said "I think his PA is very high." Cougar2010 made a similar assessment and then said "Rating: Future 4/5." I made a similar but more negative assessment and then rated him as the highest potential, again without clear justification why. I'm struggling to explain why in more detail, as it was kind of a feeling.

2. Of the 5 people who made assessments of all the players, all 5 of them incorrectly rated Bong as having the worst potential (joint worst in 1 case.) The consistency in opinion is interesting.

3. Of the 6 people who expressed some opinion, 5 of those had either Sherrer or Diallo (183 and 173 PA) in their priority spot. Myself and HUNT3R clearly ranked Sherrer number 1, Cougar2010 had Sherrer and Diallo ranked equally as his top 2, and dieu and themadsheep2001 both had Diallo as their number 1. If we all had to sign our number 1, then we all would have got a player at least 173PA, aside from edj, who would humourously end up with the worst player at 114 PA. Bear in mind that we had scouts giving us identical potential star ratings for these players.

4. Most of us expressed that we probably wouldn't want any of the players anyway, for various but largely similar reasons. Injury proneness and consistency were two of the most common reasons given. Sherrer is injury prone, although he is at Man City. Diallo is inconsistent. It will be interesting to see which of the two players fulfills their PA most. I'm not convinced either of them would necessarily be better signings than say, a 160PA consistent, injury free player, in terms of their peak CA.

5. If you could somehow find some players who we actually would all want, that could be very interesting. For instance, if all the players were consistent and injury free, to make us feel that they were all players who would be likely to reach their PA under human control.

Overall this is an interesting introduction to Some Guy!s experiment, in the context of his preferred issue of PA being too easy to figure out. Obviously it is still too small a sample to really draw any conclusions from, but hopefully this continues and provides us with some decent evidence.

I would like to reiterate and stand by what I said earlier:

in conjunction with this:

I look forward to this continuing.

I like the way I did it last time, but I think I'll give it a clean run from the start (more scouts, try and get as much information into the pictures as possible etc.), but the biggest issue is not letting my own thoughts about players get in the way (i.e. ruling any out for any reason). The 4 posted were literally the 4 that my scouts rated the highest at that point in time. What I don't want to do is pick specific players out of a list of many as it may introduce bias, and the last thing we need is players being picked for some kind of agenda.

I'll have a crack at a largest list tomorrow though, and ask people to stick them in pools, both in terms of "good personality" and "raw potential". I don't know, I might aim for 20 players, but that might mean that I can't have them all from the same season (so the best 5-10 from one season, + the best 5-10 from the next, etc. until I get to the figure). I also don't want to go through the mess of all the screenshots as last time, so I'm thinking of putting all the information on one screen best I can (i.e. take the 2-3 screenshots, put the important parts cut together on one screenshot), but I'll have to see how that goes.

In any case, I would put the results as:

Scherrer outright best: 2

Diallo outright best: 1

Diallo/Outarra best: 1

Outarra/Scherrer best: 1

Bong was picked as the worst or equal worst by each, despite having a drastically higher PA than Ouattara. Outattara was actually picked as the equal best once and second best twice.

If we ranked them by average rating it would come out as:

1. Diallo: 1.8 [173]

2. Scherrer: 2.0 [183]

3. Outtarra: 2.3 [114]

4. Bong: 3.9 [157]

Interestingly even you rated Ouattara highly at second, and when I originally posted them, seeing the asking prices I actually thought: "I'd have a punt on him". Whilst you did note you were suspicious of the price, you did note that you thought he could have "one of the highest PAs".

As with you, the consistency is what's getting me about it, even such a small sample. People were put off by Bong, while Diallo was consistently considered high PA. I would avoid really making any judgements on just this though.

I think I'll post the next bunch as a new thread though to clear it up from talk of this discussion a bit.

[HUNT3R]

1. One interesting thing is that none of us explicitly stated what it is that made us think Sherrer had the highest PA. HUNT3R assessed the attributes and the report and then said "I think his PA is very high." Cougar2010 made a similar assessment and then said "Rating: Future 4/5." I made a similar but more negative assessment and then rated him as the highest potential, again without clear justification why. I'm struggling to explain why in more detail, as it was kind of a feeling.

2. Of the 5 people who made assessments of all the players, all 5 of them incorrectly rated Bong as having the worst potential (joint worst in 1 case.) The consistency in opinion is interesting.

I think most of us did very well, even with Bong. Ouattara was the one that we all overrated, massively, as it turns out.

Sherrer had a few clues. Interestingly, though, he has a lower CA than Diallo. They all had 0.5* CA, except Diallo (1.5*).

Anyway, he had good numbers in the right attributes, which made me like him and trust the report. Determination, Decisions, Concentration (in fact, all his mental attributes are decent), in addition to Technique, Passing and First Touch. His quickness is also quite good. All he really needs focus on, is strength. Determined, Big Match temperament and Consistent. All good values.

I'd speculate that he might not do so well under AI management (specifically thinking about injury management) but we would probably do really well with him.

[YKW]

Re-reading people's analysis of the players, I wanted to go back to the issue of injury proneness, consistency and player personality, as these are key in almost everyone's considerations.

One thing I have been trying to get at in this thread, is that I'm not sure we should really be able to scout for any of these things. Obviously they are central to people's assessment of an in game player, but in real life they are things with huge amounts of uncertainty about them. Most of these pieces of information are things that become more certain as proximity to the player increases. For example, a coach would be able to tell me about one of my players personality in more detail than a scout could tell me about the personality of a new transfer target. Funnily, I would put the fans as being somewhere in the middle.

Injury Proneness. How does a scout (or anyone) know that a particular player is injury prone? Mainly because of his injury record. Perhaps different scouts have their own heuristics that they apply to draw conclusions about the injury proneness of the player. These could relate to anything such as the "natural fitness" of the player, the shape of the players body (eg Wilshere's disproportionately short legs), the players drinking habits (Andy Carroll), or even that the individual is just clumsy. I think that the way the game works, injury proneness should not be scoutable through anything other than the players injury history. What I also think is interesting about injury proneness is the fact that there isn't really a reason a club would want anyone else to know that a certain player was injury prone, especially if they want to sell that player. Therefore it should be even harder to find out because clubs wouldn't want you to know. Perhaps injury proneness could be included in the "Medical report card" which could occur before confirming a transfer. It would be fun to get a fresh report from a medical that could tell me the players injury proneness. Perhaps some physical attributes, like agility, natural fitness and stamina could change as a result of the medical making the players physical standards more clear.

Consistency. Again, how is this being judged and who would know? It does seem that by its very definition the term "consistent" couldn't really be applied to a new professional. On what basis is the scout in the above examples noting that a 15 year old player is a very inconsistent performer? The way I know the game works makes me see this phrase as "he will likely always be inconsistent in his performances" rather than "He has so far been inconsistent in his performances." Therefore I discount the player too easily. Coaches should perhaps be giving us this consistency information, not scouts in my opinion.

Personality. Again, how is this being judged? How much can a scout assess a players personality in real life, and how long and what situations would be required for him to do so? Coaches should know the personality of a player, the players friends should know his personality, but a scout should very rarely know this. If I ask one of my players to recommend a signing, then I should be able to see that potential signings personality, for example. If I just scout a random player, I shouldn't be able to see it. On what basis has my scout judged this players ambition? Or judged how he handles pressure? On what basis is he really inferring that the player would have to do a lot of adapting to fit in? Surely even a very determined player may not bond with a very determined squad. See previous suggestions I have had regarding "team hierarchy" that I think would be one way of expanding this.

I would like to see the scouting network be expanded in such a way that discovering these pieces of information is key to playing the transfer market. The flow of information could be modeled more intricately, to provide advantages and disadvantages to different clubs in different situations, beyond simply their scouting range and scouts ability. For instance, if I have a feeder club and a good relationship with the manager, then I could likely know a lot more about the players at that club in terms of the factors above. Who are their most consistent players? Who are their most injury prone or free players? What is the personality of their players? If i looked at another team in that league who I was not affiliated with, it would likely be the case that I couldn't find out that information about the players even through scouting them for quite a while.

The key element here for me would be either to remove the scouted consistency, injury proneness and personality elements, or have them reported as drastically incorrect more of the time. For instance a very consistent player on bad form reported as being very inconsistent, or a relatively injury free player who is currently injured being reported as injury prone. Enough to make me rule out less players less quickly, and decide on less targets and less quickly.

[Some Guy!]

I think most of us did very well, even with Bong. Ouattara was the one that we all overrated, massively, as it turns out.

Sherrer had a few clues. Interestingly, though, he has a lower CA than Diallo. They all had 0.5* CA, except Diallo (1.5*).

Anyway, he had good numbers in the right attributes, which made me like him and trust the report. Determination, Decisions, Concentration (in fact, all his mental attributes are decent), in addition to Technique, Passing and First Touch. His quickness is also quite good. All he really needs focus on, is strength. Determined, Big Match temperament and Consistent. All good values.

I'd speculate that he might not do so well under AI management (specifically thinking about injury management) but we would probably do really well with him.

That's the thing, everyone did quite well. I'd find it really interesting to see how people handle a larger bunch. I've now put together a bigger scouting team, again set them all at 20/20 for ability/potential, and will do a similar thing to last time. I'm thinking of posting it as it's own thread though to remove it from this discussion somewhat.

I was originally tempted to post my own thoughts about the players, but I was worried I might accidentally add bias into others' answers. Personally I didn't like the look of Bong either, I liked, but was a bit suspicious of Diallo, thought Ouattara looked alright and was a good price, and quite liked Scherrer (though that's just because I have a bit of a thing for any DMs, I have a club full of them right now...).

Oh well, as a change of plan I'm starting to set up the new ones.

[HUNT3R]

Scouts would be talking to coaches, the player himself etc, YKW. They can gain knowledge that way that they wouldn't have received from just watching him play.

[HUNT3R]

That's the thing, everyone did quite well. I'd find it really interesting to see how people handle a larger bunch. I've now put together a bigger scouting team, again set them all at 20/20 for ability/potential, and will do a similar thing to last time. I'm thinking of posting it as it's own thread though to remove it from this discussion somewhat.

I was originally tempted to post my own thoughts about the players, but I was worried I might accidentally add bias into others' answers. Personally I didn't like the look of Bong either, I liked, but was a bit suspicious of Diallo, thought Ouattara looked alright and was a good price, and quite liked Scherrer (though that's just because I have a bit of a thing for any DMs, I have a club full of them right now...).

Oh well, as a change of plan I'm starting to set up the new ones.

A new thread would be good, imo.

It'd be good to see what we judge their PA as and whether we'd sign them or not. The two don't always go together.

[Some Guy!]

A new thread would be good, imo.

It'd be good to see what we judge their PA as and whether we'd sign them or not. The two don't always go together.

What I'm thinking right now is about 10-15 players, have the attributes screen, position screen and scouting screen cut into one image (for ease of posting more than anything else), include the same information as before about price they'd cost at the time.

I'm also thinking of making the question about them a bit more direct, as well as thoughts on them in general. i.e. giving both an estimate of their potential and some thoughts. As in, set a number of rangers, and ask that people give them a rating out of 5 for potential based roughly on:

5: 185+

4: 170-185

3: 155-170

2: 130-155

1: <130

That'll both give a clear "prediction" element (which people tended towards) as well as some thoughts on the players themselves, (i.e. his determination isn't promising). The idea of "would you sign them" with the idea being as a big club, considering how you rate their potential, their attribute balance and personality, as well as the price would actually be quite interesting too.