Superb or Excellent

[Norfolk Enchants]

So Topman > Superman?

Batman > Superman

[Marabak]

In the grand scheme of things, the practical difference between the two levels is negligible... or tiny. Whichever you prefer.

[louissiscool]

Just change excellent to lovely jubbly and everyone is happy.

[forameuss]

So essentially this topic is 98% of people having a party, then 2 bald men arguing over a comb? Metaphorically of course.

What started as a pretty good question, has now degenerated into a "get yer dictionary out for the ladz" bantz. Come on, we're better than this. Not much better, but still.

[Cougar2010]

For instance, if I'm loaning a player out, I may well want him to go to the club with the better facilities. It's just shoddy design. If you're going to use adjectives to describe an objective measure of quality, there need to be clear differences between each rather than two terms which are at best interchangeable and at worst the wrong way round. Or you could just put it on a number scale.

Imagine if they did it for all attributes. Striker One is Excellent at finishing, Strike Two is Superb, and you have to figure out who's better. It's just simpler to say one has an 18 and two has a 16.

The point is its meant to be somewhat abiguous. How does anyone know what level a club's facilities are at IRL?

Its like the old argument of whether Wayne Rooney should have 15 or 16 for finishing, its not relevant in the grand scheme of things.

As for attributes its been suggested for many years now that SI should drop the numbers (putting them behind the scenes) leaving the user with either nothing or a more generic description like poor/average/good. There are even some skins the last couple of years that have done that.

[Rayzor]

Actually i think a 20 point scale is too small. If there are 20 football players in the whole world. I could watch them them and rank their shooting. There, i need 20 different numbers.

Someone else might rank them differently. If everyone in the world ranked these 20 players, their average rank would be the closest thing to the truth.

Some of the 20 players can be ranked equally by some people, so some people might not need 20 numbers.

Then of course there a few more than just 20 football players, so you might need a few more numbers.

Or you could split the players up into another category. Lets call it potential ability. We could give that scale a range of say i dunno 200 numbers? So between potential ability and shooting, i have 4000 differing levels of shooting. Obviously there's a degree of ambiguity, so lets just hide the potential ability.

What you have left is a range of stats for a player, scaled out of 20, that reflects the relative strength and weaknesses of the player and not necessarily their absolute ability level.

Then you have scouts around the world to fill the database of players stats with numbers.

If you're lucky the scouts understand the attribute scores should reflect the player strengths and weaknesses and not their absolute skill level.

A player with no weakness also has no strengths (relative to his other stats). So there is no need to have a scale of 20. A scale of 1 is sufficient to describe this player. Scores of 10 for everything would be the same as 1 for everything or 20 for everything.

A player with 1 tiny weakness and 1 tiny strength and everything else the same would need a scale of 3. The weakness could be 1, the strength 3 and the rest all 2.

A player with 1 huge weakness and 1 huge strength and everything else the same would need a larger scale to describe the difference between his weakness and his strength. The weakness could be 1, the strength could be 20 and all the rest 10.

So you see the 20 different numbers used for ability should be used to simply describe the difference between a players best and worst skill.

Of course the problem is not the number system, but the misunderstanding by the everyone of what the attributes mean.

So you end up with a players like Messi with high numbers in everything which simply makes no sense.

[Bababui]

The difference is millions of monetary units, in response to post 52