Two-Footed Player Experiment

[wazzaflow10]

I've been playing FM since 07 and have always been curious as to why two footed players have worse stats than single footed players. Just to be clear, this isn't a question of CA/PA, but rather why the mechanic exists in the game. My curiosity extended to a question I'd like to posit (below) and hopefully answer with some regression analysis. The problem I'm running into is extracting all the data/variables I need run the experiment properly. So before I go on a long diatribe about a research question and possible methodologies, I'd like to first know if it is at all possible to extract in-game data and statistics at a large scale. I know I can get their attributes from genie scout but I'm running into trouble with extracting match statistics. Is it all possible to automate extracting match data on a large scale?

If yes, I'll continue, if no, I'll have to think of a less elegant way to run my experiment. As a side note I'm a statistician by day and (currently) Rupel Boom manager by night on FM 16.

So with all of that said, here's my proposed idea. I'd be willing to accept help from anyone who is interested in this idea.

The research question is do two footed players have a significantly lower average match rating than one footed players?

Methodology:

The dependent variable is the Average match rating. I'm going to use a stepwise linear regression function to predict average match rating. I'll be using all of the players attributes (hidden, technical, mental, and physical), the players CA, PA, position played during the match, the league's average CA, league's average PA, the league's reputation, match opponent's average CA, average PA, current morale (though I would prefer to fix that to superb to eliminate any effects from that) etc. and anything else I can think that may be useful. I'll also be putting interaction variables together (since none of these ratings exist in a vacuum). The hope is that the variable "weaker foot" is statistically significant and negative. This would indicate that a player with a higher rating in weaker foot, controlling for all other variables, inversely impacts average match rating. If it's positive, it would mean that players with like attributes that can use both feet have a higher average match rating (which I doubt anyone would complain about).

I have some other methodological musings as well doing things like paired samples and only varying the weaker foot attribute.

Anyone have any thoughts or ideas on how to help me complete this project? Thanks in advance!

[Cougar2010]

The question of why is easy to answer.

If you take two real life players who are totally equal except one is heavily one footed while the other is two footed then the two footed player is clearly better than the one footed player. Therefore its correct that a two footed player has a higher CA than a one footed player of equal skill.

Thats not easy to put into FM & SI decided the best way was to make "Weak Foot" an attribute like any other and assign CA points to it. Its not ideal but no-one has really come up with any good ideas about how it could be done differently.

As to how it works in the ME I've always been of the opinion it works well for attacking players but defensive ones (GK & DC especially) suffer and generally under perform compared to a one footed player of equal CA.

[wazzaflow10]

The question of why is easy to answer.

If you take two real life players who are totally equal except one is heavily one footed while the other is two footed then the two footed player is clearly better than the one footed player. Therefore its correct that a two footed player has a higher CA than a one footed player of equal skill.

Thats not easy to put into FM & SI decided the best way was to make "Weak Foot" an attribute like any other and assign CA points to it. Its not ideal but no-one has really come up with any good ideas about how it could be done differently.

As to how it works in the ME I've always been of the opinion it works well for attacking players but defensive ones (GK & DC especially) suffer and generally under perform compared to a one footed player of equal CA.

I see your point, however, to me that is not a correct assumption. Or maybe rephrased, I am on the other side of the fence where a player with two feet should not require a higher CA to have equal ratings. Here's my point, suppose we take the current system where CA points are allocated to weak foot. When searching for a player that has the same ability the mental, physical, and technical attributes are much lower. Your ability to use both feet shouldn't make you an overall worse player in every other metric. By being two footed I certainly am not a less determined or slower player potentially because I use both feet. That is my criticism. Being two footed should be a skill, and perhaps a very hard PPM to master. But there should be a great benefit - not overpowering - but a benefit to being two footed, not a tax.

A final point: If we assume to be 20/20 in footedness is to require 30 CA points, that means at the limit of 200 CA points we can have a player allocate 170 to attributes and be penalized for using both feet. That to me does not make sense. The purpose of my experiment is to see if in fact players who controlling for this equal ability players with two feet perform better than others.

[Cougar2010]

I see your point, however, to me that is not a correct assumption. Or maybe rephrased, I am on the other side of the fence where a player with two feet should not require a higher CA to have equal ratings. Here's my point, suppose we take the current system where CA points are allocated to weak foot. When searching for a player that has the same ability the mental, physical, and technical attributes are much lower. Your ability to use both feet shouldn't make you an overall worse player in every other metric. By being two footed I certainly am not a less determined or slower player potentially because I use both feet. That is my criticism. Being two footed should be a skill, and perhaps a very hard PPM to master. But there should be a great benefit - not overpowering - but a benefit to being two footed, not a tax.

You are looking at it backwards, its not a tax, its an attribute just like any other.

A final point: If we assume to be 20/20 in footedness is to require 30 CA points, that means at the limit of 200 CA points we can have a player allocate 170 to attributes and be penalized for using both feet. That to me does not make sense. The purpose of my experiment is to see if in fact players who controlling for this equal ability players with two feet perform better than others.

If you assume a DC requires 30 CA points to achieve 20/20 in marking that leaves 170 to spend on other attributes. Why should he be penalised in pace/positioning/strength because he is good at marking.

See how that works?

[HUNT3R]

Also remember that just because a one footed player's attribute is higher, it doesn't make him better. A one footed player may have 19 for finishing compared to say 15 for the two footed player. That 19 only counts when it is on the strongest foot. It's probably 4 for Finishing on the other foot where the two footed striker has 15 for Finishing with either foot.

[wazzaflow10]

Also remember that just because a one footed player's attribute is higher, it doesn't make him better. A one footed player may have 19 for finishing compared to say 15 for the two footed player. That 19 only counts when it is on the strongest foot. It's probably 4 for Finishing on the other foot where the two footed striker has 15 for Finishing with either foot.

So let's take that idea for a minute. First the game mechanics: If I'm looking for an elite poacher and I search for players with greater than 18 in finishing, I filter out the two footed player. It seems to me that having a two footed ability makes their attributes lower to balance the game and we don't have an easy exploit. That's why I want to run the experiment. Is there any difference in player performance controlling for all the variables I listed above based on their weaker foot rating. Because what I am hearing is that if we take players that are equal in CA, the two footed player will have lower attributes because being two footed costs CA. Having two useful feet doesn't make you a better player it makes you a more flexible/adaptable player and harder to close down, yet it comes at the cost of potentially being worse at critical values. Why can't we have a player that is completely identical except he can use both feet have 19 finishing why is that up to CA?

Having two feet is useful but if my poacher is only a 15 at finishing, chances are I'm not going to sign him because that's just a tick above the top tier threshold. Whereas the player with 19 in finishing may be a donkey on his weaker foot but when he gets a chance with his preferred side, he'll more than likely score. And we know the game is played in one off instances. It's a probability engine, and if my right foot only player with 19 can manage to get his right foot on the ball, in that instance he'll have a better chance of scoring than the player with 15. Maybe someone would argue that if he could use his left he is less dependent on a certain scenario occurring to score. But the fact remains that he is still only a 15 at finishing. I'm not trying to unpack the match engine but if we make two players all else equal and one has 15 finishing and one has 19 what's the scoring lift? What is it if the player with 15 can use both feet?

I know this isn't the wishlist thread but I'd almost rather see two values for technical attributes - one for each foot where its appropriate.

[wazzaflow10]

You are looking at it backwards, its not a tax, its an attribute just like any other.

If you assume a DC requires 30 CA points to achieve 20/20 in marking that leaves 170 to spend on other attributes. Why should he be penalised in pace/positioning/strength because he is good at marking.

See how that works?

Fair point. But you can also imagine a player that is quick can get away with being rather poor at marking because he has the pace/acceleration to recover and perform at the same level. It's like being Kurt Zouma instead of being John Terry. When Zouma's physical traits go, he'll have to learn to position and mark better because he won't have the pace to make up for mistakes in positioning or marking. Otherwise his CA would drop. Having he ability to use your weaker shouldn't affect your overall ability. All I'm saying is that you should be able to have elite attributes for the particular level but not have a CA that is 30 points higher than the next closest player in the league.

[santy001]

I know this isn't the wishlist thread but I'd almost rather see two values for technical attributes - one for each foot where its appropriate.

This again comes into the realm of how do we research this? We can typically tell how much a player favours his left or right foot. If someone is almost exclusively right footed, we're never really going to see how they pass with their left foot, how they cross with their left foot, how they take free-kicks with their left foot, their technique with their left foot. The footedness serves as a modifier of sorts, but even then it's not a clear cut issue.

Part of the issue with this 'experiment' though is that you're looking at a solitary element in isolation. Metagaming is forever an issue with this, but I hope SI keep it reduced to a minimum where possible because you don't need to know the answer to this. It has an effect in the game and it is entirely down to your anecdotal experiences as a manager in the game as to how you should be approaching and dealing with this. This means there won't be a right answer, your answer won't be the same as someone elses - but it will be based on what you've seen as a manager in FM.

Generally however, the reason a 2 footed player with finishing 15 is better than a single footed player with 19 finishing is because there isn't much difference between a player with 15 finishing and 19 finishing. There is a difference, but thankfully in FM there is no point where anyone can say "Dave with 15 Finishing missed there, but Dave2 with 19 Finishing would've scored there" and I love that this is the case. It's not just a numbers checklist game where if you make sure you have a number of X or greater in Y you will get Z.

Part of what you're seeing here is a misplaced fixation on CA as well though Wazzaflow. If we set a player as 2 footed, that doesn't mean he's lost any CA. It doesn't mean he's having to lose some finishing or marking or pace etc to factor this in. We rate the player as we deem fit, there can be a 2 footed striker with 19 finishing, there is nothing that prevents this. There can be a 1 footed player with 1 finishing, again there's nothing that prevents this. Each player is rated on his own merits, this does mean at times making allowances for extremely fast player, and factoring that into their CA as an example. In years gone by Gabby Agbonlahor was never the archetype circa 150CA player the community would expect, but he was a circa 150CA player by virtue of that is where his pace & acceleration pushed him after everything else was rated as it ought to be.

[WizbaII]

Being two-footed is a skill that can be developed and thus should have an impact on CA (although we're not supposed to see this number, anyway). However, I can agree with OP that not every position benefits equally from being two-footed.

santy, one of the ways in which you can tell how good a player is at something is by often how they choose to do it. I mean, this isn't always true, but in general it is. Someone is a bad crosser knows it and is not going to be crossing all the time. Someone who is very good at dribbling with the ball knows it and might choose to dribble in situations where passing would make more sense. You could say the same about being two-footed. I'm sure it's always affected by Decisions and other factors.

[casdelo]

Research wise, the problem you have here is a research bias.

You may be better off doing real world research on players that are two footed and how that impacts other areas, especially physical areas like pace, stamina, and strength to see if being two footed has any influence on other physical attributes.

[santy001]

Research wise, the problem you have here is a research bias.

You may be better off doing real world research on players that are two footed and how that impacts other areas, especially physical areas like pace, stamina, and strength to see if being two footed has any influence on other physical attributes.

It doesn't have any influence on physical attributes now. A player doesn't need to be 2 footed to run at 20 pace with each leg, if a player is rated at 1/20 for footedness, his left leg isn't just some haunch of dead meat he flails around on the pitch.

[Soninho]

It doesn't have any influence on physical attributes now. A player doesn't need to be 2 footed to run at 20 pace with each leg, if a player is rated at 1/20 for footedness, his left leg isn't just some haunch of dead meat he flails around on the pitch.

Haha.. All I can see now in my head is Quaresma jumping around on the pitch on his right leg and completely missing the other one..! ?

[Carninho]

Also remember that just because a one footed player's attribute is higher, it doesn't make him better. A one footed player may have 19 for finishing compared to say 15 for the two footed player. That 19 only counts when it is on the strongest foot. It's probably 4 for Finishing on the other foot where the two footed striker has 15 for Finishing with either foot.

i'd pick the one who can head it better ;-)

[Warrenwwr]

interesting experiment....

it would definitely be tough to determine for sure if the footedness plays such a huge role in fm, im subbed for sure to see the result!

footedness uses a lot of ca, so i doubt you will be able to keep attributes constant, unless you freeze them?

from what i've seen more 2 footedness is better, especially in creative/attacking roles.

im predicting diminishing performance returns above a weaker foot rating of 10/20 though.

[DP]

Couldn't you have it as a PPM?

Most players are one or the other - for those that use two, just do it as a PPM. It shouldn't drastically improve the quality of the player. Messi is left footed and Ronaldo is right footed. Sure both a fairly comfortable with their left but the fact they're not truly two footed doesn't really affect their ability.

[MBarbaric]

Couldn't you have it as a PPM?

Most players are one or the other - for those that use two, just do it as a PPM. It shouldn't drastically improve the quality of the player. Messi is left footed and Ronaldo is right footed. Sure both a fairly comfortable with their left but the fact they're not truly two footed doesn't really affect their ability.

well, we don't know that since they aren't two footed. all we can say they are extraordinary even with one foot.

[WizbaII]

Landon Donovan comes to mind as a two-footed player with considerable weak foot ability. He would still have been good otherwise, but not quite as good. The question for me is not whether or not to use CA, but how much CA to use.

[Soninho]

If a player has 15 in passing, and is right footed only. Of course it's 15 on that foot, but is there some sort of system that decides what the passing attribute is on his left?

Example: His left foot is useless so the game calculates he only uses 30% of his passing stat on that foot...?

And this percentage changed depending on how good he is on weaker foot...?

[MBarbaric]

If a player has 15 in passing, and is right footed only. Of course it's 15 on that foot, but is there some sort of system that decides what the passing attribute is on his left?

Example: His left foot is useless so the game calculates he only uses 30% of his passing stat on that foot...?

And this percentage changed depending on how good he is on weaker foot...?

something like that. however, a player will try and avoid to use weaker foot if he is not in a situation when it is absolutely necessary. therefore, only right footed, player will take more time to shift the ball to prefered foot and then pass/shoot. sounds simple and fast but in congested field and under pressure not having the need to change your body shape to settle on the ball means a lot.

[santy001]

People tend to forget though that this passing of 15 on his main foot isn't effectively 15 all the time. What if he's high up the pitch, close to the opponents final third in a big game and he's a player with low composure and low important matches? His passing isn't going to be a 15 in that situation. He may also have wonderful vision but only average technique, so in this swirl of weak mentals he may now going to try and pull off a very difficult but potentially brilliant pass with a more limited technique.

Bear in mind, even this is an incredibly simple look from the outside as just some initial concerns I can think of when viewing that players 15 passing. When you start to throw in the subtle effects of morale, the situation in the game as it is, condition, what the opposing team is doing...

It's a zero-sum game trying to figure this out and go to the metagame this far. It may be 30% effectiveness in a sweeping, across the field ball uncontested on the weaker foot. It may be 1% effectiveness with an angled through-ball behind the defence and it would probably be 99% effectiveness for a simple 5 yard pass.

[Soninho]

Ok.. Thanks for the input guys!

I have a two footed cm with decent technical stats but not the best mental. I have put him on cm def and works very well since he's often the one who distributes the ball from defenders or when attackers passes the ball backwards. I also got the feels that he got away his passes a little bot faster and it really helped my pace in the passes in the midfield area!

Will bear this in mind when I sub him because I have another player with ok left foot also that I want to dvelop and this is going to suit him very well also!

Cheers!