Discussion on youth potential mechanism

[doucong]

Hi,

Recently there is a post regarding people release low potential youths immediately after they generated. This make me think about the game mechanism. In the game we know a 16yr old potential immediately after received them, and the coaching report is almost 99% accurate. However in real life I feel you can tell the potential of a 26yr old player but will be very hard to tell a 16yr old one. I have come out two ideas regarding on this:

1) The scout/coach report for youth is more uncertain. Not only more inaccurate, I would appreciate different scouts will have different judgment, some feel one is good and others feel he is not (and for sure high JP will have better chance to judge accurate overall). For now it is like all the scouts in the world can picture a player's potential 10 years later accurately and JP only determine how long he come out this accurate result

2) Maybe for youth under let's say 20 have a ranged PA, i.e. -5, so he will have a fix PA once he turn out 20, but before his PA is in range of 80-100, and different factors like playing time, injury, personality, etc will have impact on how much PA he will get when he is 20.

Any thought?

[Guest]

Scouted PA values can be very inaccurate so there isn't much to change on that front.

What can be improved is introducing potential inaccuracies in how the report card is compiled when commenting on hidden mental attributes as those are currently 100% accurate, in the case of youngsters with limited or no senior experience it always feels off that I can get info on untested mental traits such as consistency, important matches, injury proneness, etc.

[doucong]

39 minutes ago, Barside said:

Scouted PA values can be very inaccurate so there isn't much to change on that front.

What can be improved is introducing potential inaccuracies in how the report card is compiled when commenting on hidden mental attributes as those are currently 100% accurate, in the case of youngsters with limited or no senior experience it always feels off that I can get info on untested mental traits such as consistency, important matches, injury proneness, etc.

Hey Barside, I am not sure the PA can be very inaccurate now, have you come across a time for one player two coach reports PA is 3 stars or more in difference?

[santy001]

It happens quite frequently, especially if the youngster starts off promisingly. I had my staff rating a player at 5 star potential for years, and it was only at around the age of 21 it dropped significantly, and by the time he was 23 it was down to 2 stars. By that point he hadn't really improved in about 4 years. I'd actually say FM's star rating system is less reliable than ever, I see so many 4 bright, 5 faded star potential players who I know just won't make it. I see so many who I know wouldn't even make championship football. 

I also see a large quantity of 1.5-2 star rated players, who will perform excellently in certain positions. 

I still think flexibility to PA is the wrong way to go about this, and rather adjustments to CA acquisition is the way forward. The biggest indicator is as Barside says, the hidden mental attributes. I think if there were more flexibility in the early years among these attributes, and a less clear picture of where they were at until a player has been able to prove a tendency/behaviour then it will feel a lot more organic. 

The biggest reason why any kind of externally influenced PA should be off the table for me is that players aren't stupid, it might stand up to one FM release without someone figuring it out, but it would pretty drastically require an overhaul as soon as players figure it out and youth-booster guides become commonplace. 

[doucong]

20 minutes ago, santy001 said:

It happens quite frequently, especially if the youngster starts off promisingly. I had my staff rating a player at 5 star potential for years, and it was only at around the age of 21 it dropped significantly, and by the time he was 23 it was down to 2 stars. By that point he hadn't really improved in about 4 years. I'd actually say FM's star rating system is less reliable than ever, I see so many 4 bright, 5 faded star potential players who I know just won't make it. I see so many who I know wouldn't even make championship football. 

I also see a large quantity of 1.5-2 star rated players, who will perform excellently in certain positions. 

I still think flexibility to PA is the wrong way to go about this, and rather adjustments to CA acquisition is the way forward. The biggest indicator is as Barside says, the hidden mental attributes. I think if there were more flexibility in the early years among these attributes, and a less clear picture of where they were at until a player has been able to prove a tendency/behaviour then it will feel a lot more organic. 

The biggest reason why any kind of externally influenced PA should be off the table for me is that players aren't stupid, it might stand up to one FM release without someone figuring it out, but it would pretty drastically require an overhaul as soon as players figure it out and youth-booster guides become commonplace. 

Thanks for reply, what I mean is not a 5 star player become 2 star in 2 years, as this could because the average PA of the team increase. What I mean here is at the same time, for the same player, scout A think his PA is 5 star but scout B think he is 2. As far as I can recall the biggest difference is like 1.5 stars. I feel it is not realistic especially for youth, there must some people believe he can turn out great but some don't believe it.

[santy001]

Scouts do lack a lot of nuance and context though, which is a problem through the game with staff, and just a problem of AI in general though. To my understanding scout reports are mainly going to be a logical process trying to come across as an abstract opinion - which means there won't always be a great difference in opinion - just varying degrees of accuracy. 

[Mr U Rosler]

Doing only youth academy challenges these days with and without using the editor I can tell you scouts are pretty poor at judging PA. Certainly lower level scouts.

CA is pretty accurate as it should be, its self evident in watching players during training and matches what their current ability is.

PA, they can be way off. Both ways, underating a future star and overrating quite a limited player.

Not sure where you got 99 % accurate from.

[mack4ever]

1 hour ago, doucong said:

Thanks for reply, what I mean is not a 5 star player become 2 star in 2 years, as this could because the average PA of the team increase. What I mean here is at the same time, for the same player, scout A think his PA is 5 star but scout B think he is 2. As far as I can recall the biggest difference is like 1.5 stars. I feel it is not realistic especially for youth, there must some people believe he can turn out great but some don't believe it.

I've had countless youth players who have been horribly misjudged by my coaching staff when they arrived at the club.

Both in terms of players who were rated as potentially being stars who ended up burning out of the club within a few years and players who were rated as not worth keeping who ended up being regular first team players.

[doucong]

34 minutes ago, Mr U Rosler said:

Doing only youth academy challenges these days with and without using the editor I can tell you scouts are pretty poor at judging PA. Certainly lower level scouts.

CA is pretty accurate as it should be, its self evident in watching players during training and matches what their current ability is.

PA, they can be way off. Both ways, underating a future star and overrating quite a limited player.

Not sure where you got 99 % accurate from.

I have a CA 40 youth with PA 190+, all my 6 coach think he is CA 1.5-2 stars and PA4.5-5 stars, no one think he may end up just 2 or 2.5 stars. I didn't test too much samples though

[lemeuresnew]

i think the idea of hidden attributes not being known is great. it would also be good if they were easier to change due to what they do in those early years. for instance -

i know some kids are injury prone, but you can have a youth go 2 seasons without any injury and not seem to improve. if they go without injuries it should help them improve like that. or you could add what types of injuries, instead of having players get broken noses or cuncussions have certain injuries like a dodgy knee or whatever

if a player chokes or wins a game with a late goal, should have more influence on big match stats. you can have a kid that likes big games but has never performed in one

if my kid brings a consistent season going unbeaten in the youth league, why tell me they arent consistent? it should surely change more as kids

maybe have more influence on the systems they play as a kid influence them later

[borivoje213]

I focus quite heavily on youth development.  In my current 13 year save I've never seen a player exceed the scouts opinion of his potential.  For a decade i signed every youth candidate until they were 20 and there wasn't a single pleasant surprise.  If anything you'd just see the potential of the vast majority diminish with injuries or bad loan spells etc (which is quite fair tbh).

For the most part my scouts haven't thrown me far wrong at all. mine all have 18+ attributes, and tbh all of those players they did predict as being stars probably did have that potential, had they had the perfect untainted development.

But I've yet to see a player who's potential is decent/good premiership turn out to be international quality.  Until I see it i'll feel no guilt for the fact i don't recruit crap candidates anymore.

[HUNT3R]

We've had this with the "guess the potential" thread a couple of years back. Bunch of players, all rated highly by quality scouts and we were quite off (as were the scouts) on some of the players. And this was on FM15, I think, so it should be even better/more realistic now.

[enigmatic]

I'd say 50% of the presumed accuracy of scouts is down to them being accurate and 50% down to self-fulfilling prophecy

if the scouts rate your low CA, high PA player as a two star potential then he probably still is a two star player when you release him aged 19 at the end of his youth contract, particularly as you've never bothered giving him games, and nobody playing at a decent level has been interested in buying or loaning him because their scouts also underestimate his potential. If the scouts slightly overestimate someone as 5* potential you keep renewing their contracts, give them more game time than their ability warrants and professional tutors to help them, and they end up being the best player in that youth cohort by far even if they never quite make it as a first team player. Or someone else's scouts overrate them by the same amount and you're very happy for cashing in.

 

[Cougar2010]

On 23/05/2017 at 12:25, borivoje213 said:

I focus quite heavily on youth development.  In my current 13 year save I've never seen a player exceed the scouts opinion of his potential.  For a decade i signed every youth candidate until they were 20 and there wasn't a single pleasant surprise.  If anything you'd just see the potential of the vast majority diminish with injuries or bad loan spells etc (which is quite fair tbh).

For the most part my scouts haven't thrown me far wrong at all. mine all have 18+ attributes, and tbh all of those players they did predict as being stars probably did have that potential, had they had the perfect untainted development.

But I've yet to see a player who's potential is decent/good premiership turn out to be international quality.  Until I see it i'll feel no guilt for the fact i don't recruit crap candidates anymore.

Then you are not taking enough notice because it happens all the time, literally every youth intake I get I see players whose potential stars increase & ones whose decrease every single year.

As we are mainly talking about increases they tend to fall into two general categories.

The first is where the staff members simply change their minds within 6 months to a year of the intake arriving.  So a player could have 2* PA when they arrive but this will be upgraded to 3/4* PA within 6-12 months in game.

The second category is where a player continually improves.  So he might start with 2* PA at 17yo but each season his attributes constantly improve and his PA every 1-2 seasons rises by 0.5*s.  By the time he is is in his early 20s he can easily be a 3/4* CA player but its happened gradually over time.

[gunner86]

13 hours ago, enigmatic said:

I'd say 50% of the presumed accuracy of scouts is down to them being accurate and 50% down to self-fulfilling prophecy

if the scouts rate your low CA, high PA player as a two star potential then he probably still is a two star player when you release him aged 19 at the end of his youth contract, particularly as you've never bothered giving him games, and nobody playing at a decent level has been interested in buying or loaning him because their scouts also underestimate his potential. If the scouts slightly overestimate someone as 5* potential you keep renewing their contracts, give them more game time than their ability warrants and professional tutors to help them, and they end up being the best player in that youth cohort by far even if they never quite make it as a first team player. Or someone else's scouts overrate them by the same amount and you're very happy for cashing in.

 

I think this is a good point, it would be an interesting experiment to run to see if two 17yos with different potential ratings differ as vastly when given the same treatment when it comes to development.

Although, I imagine some people will be using IGEs to check PA

[turnip]

I'm genuinely surprised to see that people have been so trusting in their backroom staff when it comes to judging the players, since I've definitely noticed that first impressions of players are an informed guess at best.

I'll generally keep all but the weakest 4-5, choosing those by looking at their attributes alongside the Coach rating. If I agree with the Coaches that a player is unlikely to bring any value to the club, I don't mind being wrong in the future. 

[Rashidi]

Between CA/PA and personality...I feel that personality is the bigger bugbear for me. How is it even remotely possible to say that a 16 or 17 year old can be a model professional much less be tutored to have his personality change within a year?

[FrazT]

The coach reports on the youth intakes are and have been a complete nightmare, regardless of how good the staff member reporting appears to be in the necessary judgement attributes.  Playing in the SPFL and Europe, my reports have regularly identified youths with "the potential to be a quality player for the club", which on checking I then find that their PA is below 100.  So take these reports with a considerable pinch of salt and use your own judgement.

[Cougar2010]

4 hours ago, FrazT said:

The coach reports on the youth intakes are and have been a complete nightmare, regardless of how good the staff member reporting appears to be in the necessary judgement attributes.  Playing in the SPFL and Europe, my reports have regularly identified youths with "the potential to be a quality player for the club", which on checking I then find that their PA is below 100.  So take these reports with a considerable pinch of salt and use your own judgement.

Isn't that the way they should be though & the way we want them?

Personally I think there should be doubt over the potential and I think SI have got the balance about right atm.  As the player gets older his PA stars get closer to his CA stars until he reaches 25yo at which point they level off irrelevant of his actual PA.

Why 25yo? I could see a case for making the age where it levels off different from player to player.

Back to doucong though and I think one of his major gripes in the OP is that every staff member rates the player the same, we need more variety in the opinions especially given how inaccurate the staff member sare overall.

[Vad]

On 26.5.2017 at 03:08, Rashidi said:

Between CA/PA and personality...I feel that personality is the bigger bugbear for me. How is it even remotely possible to say that a 16 or 17 year old can be a model professional much less be tutored to have his personality change within a year?

The Model Professional personality has an age requirement of 23 years old. If the player is younger than that he will just be labled as Professional.

[lemeuresnew]

17 minutes ago, Vad said:

The Model Professional personality has an age requirement of 23 years old. If the player is younger than that he will just be labled as Professional.

didnt know this. confusing i can have model citizens at 18 but not mod profs