EPL dominating the european cups??

[enigmatic]

14 minutes ago, benefactor_r said:

It is not tough to get it right. Year after year the problem is the same: ALL English players are overrated. Literary all of them!

The reason is simple: SI is an English company and England is the largest market for the game.

If people want to play a normal game, they would have to open the editor, decrease CA and PA for ALL English players by at least 10 points, and decrease new player regen rating for England.

This issue was brought again and again in the last 15 years, and it will never change. 

15 years? Guess you were one of the people moaning about English clubs repeatedly appearing in Champions League finals when it was actually happening 

[RBKalle]

3 ore fa, santy001 ha scritto:

Perhaps some interesting numbers for you guys to sink your teeth into in this debate. It's all publicly available in terms of the CA's, you'd just have to go and collate it yourselves to work it out.

But there's a metric the research teams use and I won't mention specific figures but hopefully it proves informative.

* Please note the data might be a bit out of date due to changes during the beta etc *

  Contenuti nascosti

 

- 1 English team in the top 5 CA squads in FM (and they are not top).

- 4 English teams in the top 10 CA squads.

- 6 English in the top 20, along with 6 Italian and 5 Spanish.

- 7 inside the top 30.

- Boca Juniors have a higher CA than roughly half the premier league teams, as do Atalanta.

- Celtic are higher than several Premier League teams (5). 

- The lowest Premier League team is the 125th best CA team.

 

 

Which players are taken into account to get the CA data?

Also, a club with an average CA of 160 but with inconsistent players (or with many duplicates or with players who don't fit the manager's tactic) is likely to lose against a team with average CA of 155 but with consistent players who fit into the AI manager's system.

A very basic example: a club with two top GK will have a high CA, but that won't help them at all unless one of the keepers gets injured before a CL big game.

P.S. Isn't league/team reputation a factor too in AI v AI situations?

@Amarante money means nothing if you don't know how to put it to good use. Many EPL clubs, especially around midtable, tend to overpay mediocre players (both rejects, leftovers or allegedly hot prospects) only to outbid other contenders, hoping to strike gold. Having 100M to spend each summer doesn't guarantee getting 100M worth of footballers.  As others have said, smart clubs signed top talents or great prospects for cheap, while EPL Top Dogs (and not just them) paid through the nose for mediocre players...

34 minuti fa, enigmatic ha scritto:

15 years? Guess you were one of the people moaning about English clubs repeatedly appearing in Champions League finals when it was actually happening 

Or when England were winning back-to-back Euros and World Cups... Oh wait..

 

[sporadicsmiles]

4 hours ago, Amarante said:

Yes that's a factor but let's be real, the Top 6 in England are word class clubs. So they are deserved of there status. 

Indeed, but if it adversely affects the way teams are playing against English sides, then it is a problem that should be looked at. Look at Red Star tonight. They did not sit back and defend the whole match. They played without fear. There is no way that would happen in FM, and that is mainly down to reputation effects. If you know what you are doing, it is easy to dominate a side who is too defensive. I assume the AI knows quite well, and add to that the players with the arguably too high ability, you end up with domination. 

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, RBKalle said:

Which players are taken into account to get the CA data?

Also, a club with an average CA of 160 but with inconsistent players (or with many duplicates or with players who don't fit the manager's tactic) is likely to lose against a team with average CA of 155 but with consistent players who fit into the AI manager's system.

A very basic example: a club with two top GK will have a high CA, but that won't help them at all unless one of the keepers gets injured before a CL big game.

If you don't mind seeing the results you can check it yourself. But to put things into perspective, Juventus' fifteenth best player has the same CA as Man Utd's fourth. The average gap, player for player, is at least ten points (which might not seem much until you realise the difference between Man Utd squad players and Championship squad players is around 20 points...). Much like IRL Pretty much only De Gea and Pogba would get into the Juventus side, and it's not clear that anyone would make the bench either. 

Sure, CA isn't everything, and you might prefer a mediocre central defender from the United first team to Juventus' better 37 year old veteran backup if you're playing a high line. But similarly, I don't think I'm revealing any secrets when I reassure you that Ronaldo is actually more consistent, better in big games and better under pressure than Lukaku, and so it's not like Juve have been crippled in some other way either. Researchers at top European sides haven't made their squads mentally weak or inconsistent. 

They have accurately represented a lot of the key players at Barcelona, Real Madrid, Juventus and Bayern as being the wrong side of thirty though, which is a big replacement job for the AI, especially if they like the high reputation players appearing in matches after their lack of pace has become a major shortcoming in the FM match engine, and if Premier League clubs are busy upgrading rather than replacing. The one thing the Premier League starting squads have got in their favour is they're typically younger.

 

 

[RBKalle]

53 minuti fa, enigmatic ha scritto:

If you don't mind seeing the results you can check it yourself.

I took a peak at FM18, and I asked this because the further you go down the pecking order, the more it gets muddier. I.e. last year's Napoli had an extremely thin first-team squad, meaning their average CA was "saved" by not having a bunch of CA140 backups to lower the figure, while clubs with larger squads (or a particularly subpar backup keeper) look worse than their actual Starting XI would suggest.

Quote

But to put things into perspective, Juventus' fifteenth best player has the same CA as Man Utd's fourth. The average gap, player for player, is at least ten points (which might not seem much until you realise the difference between Man Utd squad players and Championship squad players is around 20 points...). Much like IRL Pretty much only De Gea and Pogba would get into the Juventus side, and it's not clear that anyone would make the bench either. 

Honestly, is it that far-fetched?

Juventus have a very impressive squad, while United (but I'd also throw Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool into the mix) only have a handful of truly Top Notch players. And with Ronaldo joining, Juve don't have many weak spots anymore.
(I'd probably tone that 37yo defender down a bit, but that's not the point)

Again, tonights CL round has shown how marginal the difference between "tops" and "others" is. Tottenham struggled against PSV, LFC lost to Red Star without it being "one of those FM matches". Inter held their own against (a wasteful) Barça. Napoli were the better side for 45mins against PSG. Oh and Monaco got destroyed by the Belgians...
So, how is Pavkov worth now? 25-30 millions?

 

[Samelders]

5 hours ago, Nacaw said:

What is there to explain, exactly? Obviously Spain has outperformed England in recent European competitions. There are so many reasons for this, not just squad quality. 

 "So you could argue that 6 English teams are roughly as good as the top 3 Spanish ones. 6 options to go far in Europe will produce better results than average". That was your quote. My point is, they are not.. Barcelona and Real Madrid are better than all English clubs and I think even Juventus and Bayern are better. Atletico, Sevilla, Dortmund, PSG are better than at least half of the top 6 teams in England. But the real problems to me are:

1. English clubs like Arsenal, United and Tottenham manage to knock-out teams like Bayern, Juve, Real and Barcelona in CL in FM in the first year(s) ingame, while reality shows they didn't really have a chance in the past years.. 

2. Teams like City, United and Tottenham overperform in FM in Europa, and underperform in Europe in reality..

3. English regens are too strong..

4. La Liga clubs are performing too weak in Europe in FM, IRL they are dominating for years now!

5. Physical load of the premier league is underestimated in game? IRL it's hard to perform both domestically and in Europe for English clubs? 

6. English non-top 6 clubs reach the final stages of the EL in FM, while IRL they get knocked out earlier because they don't play their strongest team and focus on the premier league?

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, RBKalle said:

Honestly, is it that far-fetched?

Juventus have a very impressive squad, while United (but I'd also throw Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool into the mix) only have a handful of truly Top Notch players. And with Ronaldo joining, Juve don't have many weak spots anymore.
(I'd probably tone that 37yo defender down a bit, but that's not the point)

No, not at all. I'd expect them to be quite a bit better than United, Spurs and Arsenal and they are (Liverpool's squad is relatively top heavy too).

But everybody's insisting the English research isn't kind enough to the big European clubs relative to the Premier League Big Six, when actually they're better than most of the Big Six by a pretty wide margin. But also old... (no need to tone Barzagli down, rapid in-game ageing will do that)i

 

[DP]

I don’t mind the English clubs being overrated. As has been said, SI is an English company so they’re within their rights to be biased on the side of English teams for a variety of reasons.

[Amarante]

1 minute ago, DP said:

I don’t mind the English clubs being overrated. As has been said, SI is an English company so they’re within their rights to be biased on the side of English teams for a variety of reasons.

But that is the problem as stated before the English clubs are not overrated. When english clubs buy a player from overseas the CA/PA that player has was already done when he was in a next league not when he got to England. So if player X has a 160CA at Spanish Club y when he gets to england his CA will reflect what the Spanish researcher saw not what the ENGLISH researcher saw. 

 

What people are saying is that when a player comes to England from a next country the English researchers must reduce this player because of the misconception that he is overated by those on here. 

 

People say hey English clubs are knocking out TOP 3 Spanish clubs in first season, last season we saw Spurs beat Madrid and we all know on paper Madrid should beat Spurs. You can sim those matches a 100 times and i can bet you, you will get an almost even number of victories for each side. 

When i talk about buying players people need to stop thinking about real world and think about FM World. In FM World a 50million player is worth 50million when you check his stats and his CA you can see yeah he is worth it. IN THE GAME there is no inflation, no owner adding a special tax player is sold and bought based on performance CA and PA. 

In real world English clubs waste money but in the game they don't because its a game about numbers and i wouldn't want SI to add some random factor to screw the numbers. 

On paper Liverpool should have won that game when a game like that is played in SI Liverpool who has better players has a higher chance of winning but this is why we like football, the ball is round and on any given day a next team can lose. 

On the matter of reputation, your trying to say that SI most lower the reputation of english clubs because other teams are gonna play more inferior to them. These clubs are world class and regardless of what you may think they didn't just get there overnight. Also i find that a manager tactical attributes play more into how they set up against a big team, not all AI teams play defensive. 

[Lanko]

The Premier League is extremely overrated. Dybala always seems to join Manchester United or City in about the first year. I had Key Players on Real Madrid and Barcelona wishing to leave for the PL because "it's a higher reputation league". Really?

Coutinho very quickly left Liverpool for Barça, but it would be extremely unlikely for a key player on Barça to ever do the same to play for Liverpool.

Heck, go outside England and most people would just mention Man Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool as the big ones, with recently Man City because - and specially - of Guardiola. When that guy leaves you'll see where City will stand - and will not be like in FM18-19.  

A common misconception is that if you're playing on the PL, you must be a highly technical, highly mental and physical player, which is just nonsense. All those medium clubs have just that: medium players in real life that no top club would ever want or need, yet the stats and values ingame are of top quality players.

Sure, SI have a lot of goodwill with England's club's scouts and such, and probably would lose that if they changed their inflated players 15-18 attributes to the 11-13 that would more likely ressemble real life. It's understandable.

[enigmatic]

34 minutes ago, Lanko said:

The Premier League is extremely overrated. Dybala always seems to join Manchester United or City in about the first year. I had Key Players on Real Madrid and Barcelona wishing to leave for the PL because "it's a higher reputation league". Really?

Coutinho very quickly left Liverpool for Barça, but it would be extremely unlikely for a key player on Barça to ever do the same to play for Liverpool.

Heck, go outside England and most people would just mention Man Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool as the big ones, with recently Man City because - and specially - of Guardiola. When that guy leaves you'll see where City will stand - and will not be like in FM18-19.  

A common misconception is that if you're playing on the PL, you must be a highly technical, highly mental and physical player, which is just nonsense. All those medium clubs have just that: medium players in real life that no top club would ever want or need, yet the stats and values ingame are of top quality players.

 Sure, SI have a lot of goodwill with England's club's scouts and such, and probably would lose that if they changed their inflated players 15-18 attributes to the 11-13 that would more likely ressemble real life. It's understandable.

*yawns* 

except of course these "medium players" were in many cases rated very highly by the club researcher in the foreign country they were bought from (even the players going to Stoke!) until their abilities got reduced by the English researchers because they were actually pretty average in the Premier League. And imagine thinking Juventus would never sell a key player to an English club!

The Spanish League is rated higher reputation in game than the Premier League by a relatively wide margin. There's a thing called the data editor you can use to check if you don't believe me. (I mean, it's a dynamic value so if you're really bad at managing Real or Barcelona then the Premier League will catch up...)

We get it, you don't like England, you don't understand the game and you especially don't understand how the research works. It's understandable.

[Lanko]

5 hours ago, enigmatic said:

*yawns* 

except of course these "medium players" were in many cases rated very highly by the club researcher in the foreign country they were bought from (even the players going to Stoke!) until their abilities got reduced by the English researchers because they were actually pretty average in the Premier League. And imagine thinking Juventus would never sell a key player to an English club!

The Spanish League is rated higher reputation in game than the Premier League by a relatively wide margin. There's a thing called the data editor you can use to check if you don't believe me. (I mean, it's a dynamic value so if you're really bad at managing Real or Barcelona then the Premier League will catch up...)

We get it, you don't like England, you don't understand the game and you especially don't understand how the research works. It's understandable.

*Yawns*

We get it, you are a fan of English clubs, if not English yourself, and you don't understand how the game in no way replicates the scenario even remotely close from real life and how it's being complained for years with perfectly valid arguments and facts by many people here, and yet you think it's perfectly normal and even deserved and all you have to say is "ok, you don't like England". But it's understandable.

No, it has nothing to do with not liking the English league, it has to do with all this pandering and overrating. But again, we get it, the game is made in England and probably has it's biggest base there. Wish fulfillment is a powerful thing. Again, understandable.

And to be fair, there's something similar with the Bundesliga as well. Even when Bayern is the only one doing remotely well, it's still pretty hard to dislodge the German league from second place (they usually are second).

[sporadicsmiles]

13 minutes ago, Lanko said:

No, it has nothing to do with not liking the English league, it has to do with all this pandering and overrating. But again, we get it, the game is made in England and probably has it's biggest base there. Wish fulfillment is a powerful thing. Again, understandable.

When you mention reasoned argument, this is certainly not one of them. I have yet to see anyone give any concrete evidence for over rating. The numbers are right there in the database. In fact, if you prefer, I will extract some numbers for the top leagues so we can compare club reputation, average CA, etc. If there is a bias, it will be in the numbers, and there will be concrete evidence you can use. If not, then we have to explore alternatives that are not suggesting that England is purposefully increased to pander to English fans. Which I think is absolute nonsense. But I will not really say more about the relative CA of players until I have looked into the numbers. There is no point discussing opinions when we can actually use actual evidence to defend or criticize.

The point about the EPL signing the best players in game is not just about it being the "best" league. It is the richest league. They can afford to pay players stupidly high wages. They can afford stupidly high transfer fees. That part is pretty uncontroversial.

 

[DP]

43 minutes ago, Lanko said:

*Yawns*

We get it, you are a fan of English clubs, if not English yourself, and you don't understand how the game in no way replicates the scenario even remotely close from real life and how it's being complained for years with perfectly valid arguments and facts by many people here, and yet you think it's perfectly normal and even deserved and all you have to say is "ok, you don't like England". But it's understandable.

No, it has nothing to do with not liking the English league, it has to do with all this pandering and overrating. But again, we get it, the game is made in England and probably has it's biggest base there. Wish fulfillment is a powerful thing. Again, understandable.

And to be fair, there's something similar with the Bundesliga as well. Even when Bayern is the only one doing remotely well, it's still pretty hard to dislodge the German league from second place (they usually are second).

Tbf it’s not our fault the greatest manager game of all time was created in England by English people 

Maybe other European powerhouses should bring something to the table and the prejudice may disappear 

[Lanko]

1 minute ago, sporadicsmiles said:

When you mention reasoned argument, this is certainly not one of them. I have yet to see anyone give any concrete evidence for over rating. The numbers are right there in the database. In fact, if you prefer, I will extract some numbers for the top leagues so we can compare club reputation, average CA, etc. If there is a bias, it will be in the numbers, and there will be concrete evidence you can use. If not, then we have to explore alternatives that are not suggesting that England is purposefully increased to pander to English fans. Which I think is absolute nonsense. But I will not really say more about the relative CA of players until I have looked into the numbers. There is no point discussing opinions when we can actually use actual evidence to defend or criticize.

The point about the EPL signing the best players in game is not just about it being the "best" league. It is the richest league. They can afford to pay players stupidly high wages. They can afford stupidly high transfer fees. That part is pretty uncontroversial.

 

Fair enough about the first part. I was mostly being ironic to the guy above being ironic as well.

But the money thing doesn't hold that much justice, really. It's the richest league, yes, but people say it like the EPL is not simply ahead in that, but like it's light years from the others, with their top teams regularly buying the key players of Barça, Real, Juve, Bayern over a game save and other non-English medium sizes completely unable to remotely compete for players.

But there's indeed so much one can do with only the numbers ingame, since in real life there are too many intangible variables that would probably be impossible to include in the game that would influence why the EPL is not all that in real life, but it is in the game. On the other hand, it's a long issue throughout FM.

I think the problem is that while they can pay all that money, in FM the math of the attributes simply takes over, but unlike in RL, there are never mistakes of avaliation and players being unable to perform for various reasons. Apart from a few games here and there, the vast majority of players will be very consistent for years and years, and thus the problem arrives.

When was the last time you had to dismiss/sell many players for seriously underperforming throughout a season or two? No, not dismissing/selling because the player didn't have good enough on the attributes for that league, but having the attributes necessary (or better) but seriously underperforming? Like Renato Sanches, Morata, James Rodríguez and such? I don't think it ever happened to me.

[RBKalle]

8 ore fa, Amarante ha scritto:

But that is the problem as stated before the English clubs are not overrated. When english clubs buy a player from overseas the CA/PA that player has was already done when he was in a next league not when he got to England. So if player X has a 160CA at Spanish Club y when he gets to england his CA will reflect what the Spanish researcher saw not what the ENGLISH researcher saw. 

It's a twofold issue:

1) Sometimes a 160CA player at a Spanish club SHOULDN'T have joined an English club in FM. As shown in this very thread, most EPL signings are from second- and third-tier foreign clubs, and the few top-level signings were deemed as surplus for requirement at their previous Top Club (Morata) or were bought for insane money that the club just couldn't turn down (Pogba, Allison).
In FM instead you can likely get all but the Top 5 players in the world leave their current club to join either Manchester clubs, Chelsea or even Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs if you can pay them enough.

2) Some English-based players are a bit overrated  by default for "balancing" issues, as I've suggested earlier on. If City sign a decent prospect from an EPL midtable side, you can bet his attributes will get a boost in order to make him "good enough" to at least stay with City for a while. It may be marginal (like 5 CA points), but when you add those points for a couple of players you then get a much stronger overall squad. Not to mention England NT gets much more competitive than they're IRL.

Actually, forget the CL/EL overachieving, if you think it's all the foreign researchers' "fault" for having overrated their Van Dijsk, Mangalas or Lukakus... Let's take a look at how well England performs in Nations League, Euros and World Cup during the opening cycle compared to real life...

 

 

Quote

What people are saying is that when a player comes to England from a next country the English researchers must reduce this player because of the misconception that he is overated by those on here.  

Nobody said that.

 

Quote

People say hey English clubs are knocking out TOP 3 Spanish clubs in first season, last season we saw Spurs beat Madrid and we all know on paper Madrid should beat Spurs. You can sim those matches a 100 times and i can bet you, you will get an almost even number of victories for each side. 

Except it was the Group Stage... Real later shifted into a higher gear and won the Cup, while Spurs fizzled out against a relatively tame Juventus side.

Again, BIG MATCH factor in FM apparently doesn't mean much OR English sides are portrayed as mentally stronger in FM compared to their tendency to crack under pressure when things get serious.

BTW, by your logic, Red Star and Inter are Top Clubs as they beat Liverpool and Spurs... You can't use a few matches, much less from the Group Stage, to assess a club or a nation's performance.

COLD FIGURES say Spain and Italy have had better results over the last 5 years.
COLD FIGURES say EPL sides overspend on players NOT coming from Europe's Top 5 clubs
Partially COLD FIGURES say EPL clubs in FM aren't massively overrated in terms of CA

*however* we'll have to take into account hidden attributes before saying "it's all in the EPL-haters' minds", because a team with average CA170 and Average consistency 10 will likely get their ass kicked by a team with average CA160 but average consistency 15

Quote

When i talk about buying players people need to stop thinking about real world and think about FM World. In FM World a 50million player is worth 50million when you check his stats and his CA you can see yeah he is worth it. IN THE GAME there is no inflation, no owner adding a special tax player is sold and bought based on performance CA and PA. 

In real world English clubs waste money but in the game they don't because its a game about numbers and i wouldn't want SI to add some random factor to screw the numbers. 

FM has a "what you see is what you get" approch on players way too often and it's a problem.

AI clubs can't waste 50M on a mediocre player. In real life it happens a lot.

It's not a "random factor" we need... It's a more realistic and fallible model for players performances and development. And a lower rep for EPL clubs preventing them from pillaging other (actual) Top Clubs.

[themadsheep2001]

10 hours ago, DP said:

I don’t mind the English clubs being overrated. As has been said, SI is an English company so they’re within their rights to be biased on the side of English teams for a variety of reasons.

This isn't how the researching works by the way. Just to absolutely kill this myth stone dead. 

Not aimed just at you, but the whole thread in general. 

 

[DP]

5 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

This isn't how the researching works by the way. Just to absolutely kill this myth stone dead. 

Not aimed just at you, but the whole thread in general. 

 

Are there not ‘play styles’ and biases for the various leagues? I thought I read somewhere that, for example, Serie A teams will play differently to Premier League sides?

Wonder it this impacts their success in Europe?

[santy001]

It's worth mentioning @RBKalle that in the sphere of research, consistency is a heavily monitored attribute. There is of course the awareness that researchers could inadvertently create a super-team through the hidden attributes, chiefly with consistency among them. 

Generally speaking, when consistency is weighed in, the English teams go slightly down a bit. With exception of the odd team like Leicester. But even then, the upwards movement is only 1/2 places. 

1 hour ago, RBKalle said:

you can bet his attributes will get a boost in order to make him "good enough" to at least stay with City for a while.

This absolutely doesn't (or at least shouldn't based on our guidance) happen. Typically speaking, there would be absolutely no reason for a researcher to re-review a player who is departing. 

- - -

It's worth mentioning just what consistency is as well, its typically how many games out of 25 a player will be at his full CA (other attributes come into the mix that can worsen or lessen this impact) no player will be at their full ability at 25/25 games. This is why I mention domestic performance. This is where the biggest influence of consistency will come from. There's no saying Real Madrid are really consistent when it matters, because that's a different matter. Consistency is an aggregate of when it does mater and when it doesn't.

This would mean just arbitrary upgrades to consistency wouldn't yield realistic improvements. 

[enigmatic]

2 hours ago, RBKalle said:

It's a twofold issue:

1) Sometimes a 160CA player at a Spanish club SHOULDN'T have joined an English club in FM. As shown in this very thread, most EPL signings are from second- and third-tier foreign clubs, and the few top-level signings were deemed as surplus for requirement at their previous Top Club (Morata) or were bought for insane money that the club just couldn't turn down (Pogba, Allison).
In FM instead you can likely get all but the Top 5 players in the world leave their current club to join either Manchester clubs, Chelsea or even Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs if you can pay them enough.

I really don't think it's that uncommon though, and insane money is exactly what the fifth and sixth best clubs in England pay and the equivalents in other countries don't. Sufficiently wealthy Premier League clubs easily pick up star players from everyone in La Liga except Real and Barcelona, and they've signed players from those clubs with well over 160 CA on occasion. Sure, it's the real world, everyone knows why Real were prepared to let Di Maria and Morata go and sort of understands why Ronaldo was allowed to leave for Italy, but these were very much amongst the high CA signings people complain about in FM. AI squad building has reasons why it will and won't reject reasonable bids too, even if it sometimes gets it wrong.

(the fact Di Maria played like an absolute drain in all but a couple of games for Man Utd and Morata very much didn't improve Chelsea is a bigger deal for the "Premier League clubs easily fix their weaknesses" issue)

And even a club as unglamorous as Everton signed three Barcelona squad players in the last transfer window IRL, who weren't amongst Barcelona's first choice but were a lot better than Everton's average squad members. 

[RBKalle]

1 ora fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

This isn't how the researching works by the way. Just to absolutely kill this myth stone dead. 

Nobody is saying it's by design or, worse, in bad faith.

It's just that SI being an English company it's obvious that the most attention and knowledge base goes into the domestic league. With a bit of special consideration to said league having a lot of exposure and hype in the local (and international) media.

57 minuti fa, santy001 ha scritto:

This absolutely doesn't (or at least shouldn't based on our guidance) happen. Typically speaking, there would be absolutely no reason for a researcher to re-review a player who is departing. 

I know players don't get reassessed following a transfer, but what if Jimmy Striker was already kinda "overrated" at his previous club where he was performing fine, but at a slightly lower level?

Which leads us back to my original question: are or aren't there some "CA brackets" to represent players in a specific league and/or level? If 180-200 is CR7-esque, where do you put the typical "Best of the Rest" player who's the star of his 5th-7th place side but his worth for an actual Elite club is a coin toss?

BTW, I remember having a chat with the Scandinavian head-researcher a few years back about some players' ability, and he told me that each league had to keep the players' CA within a certain interval in order not to "disrupt" the gameworld's balance. Meaning that the absolute best players in Denmark, Norway etc simply couldn't be given a CA over a specific value. Which is generally fair enough, but that also sort of confirms there are some guidelines.

Also, in the editor, each league does have price brackets for players in specific CA intervals, and smaller nations have the higher ones left blank, in a "no player of such CA is ever showing up here", which in turns will stifle a club's rise to the top due to AI clubs still offering peanuts for some eventual top players (usually a Human-manager only scenario)

I know we're nitpicking in the end, but honestly seeing EPL clubs dominate the CL/EL and the transfer market at the highest level kinda sticks like a sore thumb in an otherwise very accurate db.

 

57 minuti fa, santy001 ha scritto:

- - -

It's worth mentioning just what consistency is as well, its typically how many games out of 25 a player will be at his full CA (other attributes come into the mix that can worsen or lessen this impact) no player will be at their full ability at 25/25 games. This is why I mention domestic performance. This is where the biggest influence of consistency will come from. There's no saying Real Madrid are really consistent when it matters, because that's a different matter. Consistency is an aggregate of when it does mater and when it doesn't.

This would mean just arbitrary upgrades to consistency wouldn't yield realistic improvements. 

I know consistency is more of a factor in longer competitions (and that even 20/20 doesn't guarantee 100% games at full potential).

So the key aspect for CL, EL and International Tournaments should be Important Matches (for players) and maybe a bit of extra Pressure around the whole club, factoring a club's winning tradition and their recent results.

I mean, do you think Juventus would play another final with the same mindset Real would? After so many lost finals, they'd have a huge chip on their shoulder, meaning pressure would be sky-high. Top Players who thrive under pressure will likely deliver, while others will fold.
And in a potential Barça v Man City, which side would have more to lose and who'd play relatively carefree?

I feel FM still isn't able to properly replicate those factors, so more often than not, CA (and Rep?) is still king.

[RBKalle]

45 minuti fa, enigmatic ha scritto:

I really don't think it's that uncommon though, and insane money is exactly what the fifth and sixth best clubs in England pay and the equivalents in other countries don't. Sufficiently wealthy Premier League clubs easily pick up star players from everyone in La Liga except Real and Barcelona, and they've signed players from those clubs with well over 160 CA on occasion. Sure, it's the real world, everyone knows why Real were prepared to let Di Maria and Morata go and sort of understands why Ronaldo was allowed to leave for Italy, but these were very much amongst the high CA signings people complain about in FM. AI squad building has reasons why it will and won't reject reasonable bids too, even if it sometimes gets it wrong.

(the fact Di Maria played like an absolute drain in all but a couple of games for Man Utd and Morata very much didn't improve Chelsea is a bigger deal for the "Premier League clubs easily fix their weaknesses" issue)

Di Maria and Morata were pretty much (fancy) deadwood. Ronaldo was allowed to leave for various reasons but it was more a matter of his time there being over.

Real and Barça (and likely Bayern) don't sell their key players period. Whoever leaves is either a backup or someone expendable for other reasons (high wage, age, dressing room politics).

I suspect in FM you can easily sign ANY Top Player, even at the peak of his career, as long as your pockets are deep enough to afford the insane release clause and the wage requests.

 

Quote

And even a club as unglamorous as Everton signed three Barcelona squad players in the last transfer window IRL, who weren't amongst Barcelona's first choice but were a lot better than Everton's average squad members. 

Oh come on...

Barça were probably couldn't believe their luck as they managed to offload two duds for a profit (and hopefully they'll net a profit for André Gomes too). Midtable EPL teams are doing exactly what second-tier clubs were doing 25 years ago with their first Pay TV money.... They spend stupid money to scoop up actual top clubs' rejects and outcasts, thinking they'll improve their squads, only to find out they're simply throwing their transfer budget away on overpriced mediocrity whose only appeal is "he used to play for Barça".

 

[Rivanov]

In my first season the Champions League final was between FC Porto vs. Atletico Madrid. FC Porto won 3-1..
The Europa League final was between Valencia vs Arsenal. Valencia won 2-0.

So EPL teams are not always dominating.

[Amarante]

15 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Di Maria and Morata were pretty much (fancy) deadwood. Ronaldo was allowed to leave for various reasons but it was more a matter of his time there being over.

Real and Barça (and likely Bayern) don't sell their key players period. Whoever leaves is either a backup or someone expendable for other reasons (high wage, age, dressing room politics).

I suspect in FM you can easily sign ANY Top Player, even at the peak of his career, as long as your pockets are deep enough to afford the insane release clause and the wage requests.

 

Oh come on...

Barça were probably couldn't believe their luck as they managed to offload two duds for a profit (and hopefully they'll net a profit for André Gomes too). Midtable EPL teams are doing exactly what second-tier clubs were doing 25 years ago with their first Pay TV money.... They spend stupid money to scoop up actual top clubs' rejects and outcasts, thinking they'll improve their squads, only to find out they're simply throwing their transfer budget away on overpriced mediocrity whose only appeal is "he used to play for Barça".

 

Top Club Rejects? Sorry, If my club is a midtable club i am fighting for 10-7 I sign Andre Gomes bench player for Barcelona, he isn't  a top club reject but a great asset to my midtable club. 

Morata and Di Maria were good to great players for Madrid, you could say Di Maria was world class when he was bought along with Morata who would have been seen a a great prospect to be a world class striker. 

City went out and got Mendy, B.Silva, laporte who are all great prospects to become world class along with Sane. 

Liverpool went and got Van Dike great CB a great GK and good prospect in Kieta and Fabinho. 

When Arsenal purchased Ozil he was world class and you can argue he still is just isn't consistent enough. 

Big Money move happen not because a player is on bench for Madrid or Barca means he's a reject. I guess when James went to Bayern he was a reject. 

Take a look through wolves and you ask yourself they have a pretty good squad of players that are comfortably midtable to  maybe Europa league challenging. 

I\ve never seen a case where SI has overrated a player, thats fans opinion that. English media overhypes English born players  but i have where SI team has overated them, hell they are quick to nerf them. 

[RBKalle]

4 minuti fa, Amarante ha scritto:

Top Club Rejects? Sorry, If my club is a midtable club i am fighting for 10-7 I sign Andre Gomes bench player for Barcelona, he isn't  a top club reject but a great asset to my midtable club. 

They can be BOTH!

Heck, Inter won the Treble with two Real Madrid rejects at the helm, and a nice "gift" from Barça (who foolishly traded Eto'o for Ibra). Still those transfers don't measure up with Inter showing up to purchase the original Ronaldo from Barça in 97... (although back then Barça were definitely second-tier compared to other clubs)

 

4 minuti fa, Amarante ha scritto:

Morata and Di Maria were good to great players for Madrid, you could say Di Maria was world class when he was bought along with Morata who would have been seen a a great prospect to be a world class striker. 

I'll give you Di Maria (who was likely unhappy with his new position under Ancelotti?), but Morata was never in Real plans. They loaned him out to Juventus, brought him back thinking he had "it", but  quickly realized he couldn't have become more than a decent rotation option, so when Chelsea showed up with the usual wheelbarrow full of money, they sold him.

4 minuti fa, Amarante ha scritto:

City went out and got Mendy, B.Silva, laporte who are all great prospects to become world class along with Sane. 

We'll see...

4 minuti fa, Amarante ha scritto:

Liverpool went and got Van Dike great CB a great GK and good prospect in Kieta and Fabinho. 

Van Dijk was the most ridiculous transfer ever and unless he'll morph into a new Beckenbauer, he'll always be the poster boy of EPL wasteful tendency.

Alisson was a one-season wonder who didn't justify that transfer fee either, but at least he's "only" 26

Prospects, again, we'll see...

4 minuti fa, Amarante ha scritto:

When Arsenal purchased Ozil he was world class and you can argue he still is just isn't consistent enough. 

Fair enough, but, again, Real were simply looking elsewhere... Whenever they sell it's because they already (think they) have a suitable replacement. At worst, they break even...

4 minuti fa, Amarante ha scritto:

Big Money move happen not because a player is on bench for Madrid or Barca means he's a reject. I guess when James went to Bayern he was a reject. 

Again, Real decided they'd afford to lose him. Not a "reject" per se, but a player who needed a fresh start elsewhere. His quality was enough for him to end up at Bayern and not at West Ham or at Torino

4 minuti fa, Amarante ha scritto:

Take a look through wolves and you ask yourself they have a pretty good squad of players that are comfortably midtable to  maybe Europa league challenging. 

Top-half and I'm being generous...

4 minuti fa, Amarante ha scritto:

I\ve never seen a case where SI has overrated a player, thats fans opinion that. English media overhypes English born players  but i have where SI team has overated them, hell they are quick to nerf them. 

Maybe not, but I'm still waiting a different explaination for England NT being a success in FM and a joke in real life...

[Carambau]

4 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

 

Maybe not, but I'm still waiting a different explaination for England NT being a success in FM and a joke in real life...

 

Umm... 4th place at the last world cup? 

And the youth teams hold continental and world cup titles atm?

[upthetoon]

SI and researchers are all English and it's understandable for the English bias in FM. but yes, I feel most English players are massively overrated and there are many Italian players massively underrated. maybe it's because very little people watch the Serie A anyway.

[Amarante]

42 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

They can be BOTH!

Heck, Inter won the Treble with two Real Madrid rejects at the helm, and a nice "gift" from Barça (who foolishly traded Eto'o for Ibra). Still those transfers don't measure up with Inter showing up to purchase the original Ronaldo from Barça in 97... (although back then Barça were definitely second-tier compared to other clubs)

 

I'll give you Di Maria (who was likely unhappy with his new position under Ancelotti?), but Morata was never in Real plans. They loaned him out to Juventus, brought him back thinking he had "it", but  quickly realized he couldn't have become more than a decent rotation option, so when Chelsea showed up with the usual wheelbarrow full of money, they sold him.

We'll see...

Van Dijk was the most ridiculous transfer ever and unless he'll morph into a new Beckenbauer, he'll always be the poster boy of EPL wasteful tendency.

Alisson was a one-season wonder who didn't justify that transfer fee either, but at least he's "only" 26

Prospects, again, we'll see...

Fair enough, but, again, Real were simply looking elsewhere... Whenever they sell it's because they already (think they) have a suitable replacement. At worst, they break even...

Again, Real decided they'd afford to lose him. Not a "reject" per se, but a player who needed a fresh start elsewhere. His quality was enough for him to end up at Bayern and not at West Ham or at Torino

Top-half and I'm being generous...

Maybe not, but I'm still waiting a different explaination for England NT being a success in FM and a joke in real life...

England has been  bottlers. Better english teams should have won atleast a Euro or WC. Like i stated before SI can\t code them being bottlers. 

[themadsheep2001]

@RBKalle I'll say it again for those not listening. There is no special consideration of any kind. Please stop hinting or alluding there, because it's disingenuous

[themadsheep2001]

23 minutes ago, upthetoon said:

SI and researchers are all English and it's understandable for the English bias in FM. but yes, I feel most English players are massively overrated and there are many Italian players massively underrated. maybe it's because very little people watch the Serie A anyway.

This is actually false, and perhaps goes to show people aren't actually paying attention to what the researchers do or where they are even from. The Italian research is Italian for a start, in fact most club and national researchers are from their relevant home areas and nations where possible 

[themadsheep2001]

If people are going to have a debate about research, may I suggest they learn to understand a bit more about what they do first? 

[wardog]

2 hours ago, Carambau said:

 

Umm... 4th place at the last world cup? 

And the youth teams hold continental and world cup titles atm?

The youth sides do granted. But those achievements aren't considered when looking at a pa at least from what I understand from discussions in research issue threads. 

As for the world cup. England lost to Belgium's B team to get the easiest draw in history and lost v the first legitimate opponent in the semis. I really dont think that world cup would be a fair judge on any players can/pa not to mention it's 7 games tops in a knockout competition at best and thus imo (and I could be wrong) shouldn't be used for judging a players ability. Looking at some of the French team that isn't the case either. 

[sporadicsmiles]

7 hours ago, Lanko said:

When was the last time you had to dismiss/sell many players for seriously underperforming throughout a season or two? No, not dismissing/selling because the player didn't have good enough on the attributes for that league, but having the attributes necessary (or better) but seriously underperforming? Like Renato Sanches, Morata, James Rodríguez and such? I don't think it ever happened to me.

Actually I came extremely close to selling my best striker in my current save because he scored 1 goal in the league all season (it was a title winning year, so the team was not underperforming, just him). In the end I decided not to because he looked like he was getting his form back, but that was entirely based on him performing like, well, crap. I take your point though, it was a rare instance.

[santy001]

Forewarning, its going to get a bit rambling here. I'll include numbers as well because its from FM titles more than 5 years ago, and has no relevance to what is done today.

First of all, lets get this out there to put a firm stamp on what @themadsheep2001 is saying. Last time I saw a mention from Miles, there were more than 1,000 FM researchers. Bear in mind that we all tend to be sorted into our nationality teams. I'm a club researcher, and I contribute to just Stoke. No other club at all in FM. There are numerous research teams, more specifically to give examples - there is a German research team. There's an Italian research team. It goes on and on, some cover nationalities exclusively, others cover larger areas from what I understand but then the research situation of FM in South America is beyond my knowledge because I don't need to know. So I can't claim certainty beyond knowing of a few other high profile nations research teams. Had some great exchanges down the years with people from across the spectrum of FM research, the internal SI testing team however (just not on public forums, mostly by e-mail). It even goes as far as Miles himself being involved in a discussion about Bojan.

I feel I should perhaps clarify some of what I've said before. There are absolutely guidelines. Broad picture, here is what we expect in the world of football generally speaking approach that indeed acts as a sanity check. I've seen numerous researchers mentioning these recently, and its seemed very bizarre to me. It likely serves as a more polite way in all honesty, of avoiding having to be a bit of a knob like I do at times (hello dynamic PA threads) pointing out to people why they're wrong or their suggestions make little impact. It has to be stressed... so many data posts are meaningless fluff because it either doesn't achieve what players think it achieves or it just arbitrarily makes CA's higher which we tend to avoid.

I've been at the research for 9 years now I think, this isn't to say I've got any greater degree of weight to what I say because I'm guessing the potential researcher you mention @RBKalle has been around even longer than I have. But, over the years, I've asked an awful lot of questions. I cannot stress how much credit goes to SI here for the amount they humour me and answer my questions. But it enables me to replicate players better I feel, and away from just using "high CA = good" and "low CA = bad" which can easily be the trap. 

- - -

Going back several years, to the early days, I had my guidelines and the guidelines would flesh something out to the tune of the key players at Stoke should be somewhere around 145CA. There was a bracket of expected CA's, I don't remember the ceiling, the ceiling might have been 145, it might have been 150. But back then it was probably 145 since it was when Stoke were lower-half Premier league. The key players then would've been Shawcross, Huth, Whelan and Fuller. It was actually very easy to create players with the CA's, but I was not particularly happy with it. I was early on in my time as a researcher as well, so you naturally gravitate towards thinking "well this is the way it has to be" rather than realising its just a loose framework.

Whenever I submit my research data, there's an enormous e-mail message outlining my thinking, what I've done & why. I don't know if this is the norm, but it gives my head researcher a bit of context for what I've done. 

In the end submitted Shawcross with a CA north of 150. Huth was around 150. Glenn Whelan was at or below 130 and Fuller was somewhere around 135. Not one of the key players were in the guideline figures. The first problem encountered, Barcelona kept buying Ryan Shawcross. There was a lengthy e-mail back and forth over this, things were tweaked a little but I made my point that at the time Ryan Shawcross was one of the very best basic defenders in the world. He couldn't hold a candle to those who could play the ball well, he couldn't hold a candle to those who stepped up into midfield. But for a brief spell (before back injuries got the better of him) he was extremely mobile, quick and very good at reading the game. Just for a brief example, look at the defending on that stunning Ibrahimovic overhead kick all those years ago now, of the two defenders there only one of them had any idea what was happening and tries to stop it. He came incredibly close to stopping it. 

I was never told I had to change it, I was never told "for the good of the game" it can't be like this. However, there was a point that came up. Why were Barcelona buying a limited central defender in the first place? There were some other changes that came from that in the background and Shawcross was fine in the game as he was. There were some issues with England calling him up a bit too regularly, but more because I think Liverpool used to be a regular club that would sign him but then their managers back then were more likely to do that than a Klopp would today. Stoke were also willing to part with him pretty cheaply, whereas in reality any time it came up we were demanding more than £20m.

Glenn Whelan also flagged up, he's playing every game yet he had a CA of "upper championship" level. His CA was wrong by the book, yet I feel it reflected the reality so well. Stoke spent millions upon millions on "better" players trying to upgrade Glenn Whelan. Wilson Palacios, Steven N'Zonzi, Gianelli Imbula, Dean Whitehead, Marc Wilson, Marko van Ginkel (loan), Steve Sidwell, Charlie Adam, Joe Allen. Whelan would be dropped, the new signing would feature in the midfield but before long, normality resumed. The best any of them could seemingly manage was to ultimately partner him in midfield. Bizarrely last season someone thought Darren Fletcher was a sure thing and the club let him go. 

I think Fuller was generally accepted as he was submitted, but to be honest if I were to rate Fuller today I'd rate him very differently than I did then just because I've learned so much more. 

Anyhow, there were questions from the head researcher, there were questions from other researchers, questions from testers, and even questions on the forums. I'm an incredibly open person on all fronts on these forums regarding my research and behind the scenes as well so I just present my thinking and there are sometimes changes when I've misunderstood or if there is consensus on a better way to replicate what I've said I'm trying to achieve but no one has ever pulled rank on me and said "we're changing this" in regards to what I submit. 

Over the subsequent years, numerous Stoke key players kept being included in the game as 130CA or less individuals. Yet I've quite openly talked about how I felt a 170CA+ Marko Arnautovic could've been a very real thing to include in the game. I used to frequently test this CA spread out on FM in private to see how it worked and I was never truly satisfied with the results. It too often went too far one way or the other, either he would be this marauding wide-man who could score for fun, or he'd be absolutely unmanageable and get high profile moves but never sticking anywhere. 

I've always been an advocate of the belief that a flat linear trajectory of CA is incredibly boring. A lot of people were arguing for Saido Berahino to have an enormous amount lopped off his CA last year, and admittedly he was represented wrong in the game but he had come into FM18 downgraded by the West Brom researcher in the January update of 17 and the very public announcements from Mark Hughes along the lines of "We want to build his match fitness up for next season". So it culminated in an early FM18 data set of Saido Berahino going on to achieve great things, which was obviously wrong and again this is where the questions to SI came in helpful. I think it was Paul Collyer who ended up providing the guidance on how to better replicate a footballer who is struggling with issues away from the game - and has in general seemingly lost a love for it. Since the Jan update on 18 now you have a player who in my experience is difficult to manage/motivate but if you put the effort in and work on it you can get performances from. 

- - -

As I said in another thread on the general discussion, it would be really nice if there were something much more informal for discussing players. It's one of the most fun parts for me about the research, actually being able to talk through why I've done what I've done and what the thoughts/view on that is with the head researcher because its trying to bring as true to life as possible the real world equivalents to FM.

So many posters don't realise that it's such a hard discussion to have though when they come into the thread talking about individual attributes, or comparing to another player for the basis of change. There's little context to work with, it's why more frequently I've asked people to check how they're playing in game. The absurd extremity would be to suggest if someone creates a 200CA player with bizarre stats, yet they play and behave in game exactly like the player they're based on then surely its right. Of course that's practically never going to be the case, but if that ends up being the most accurate way, then it is the right way. 

In truth its more likely to come down to somewhere 10-30CA points either side of a more reasonable starting point depending on the level of player but if say Michael Owen at the time he came to Stoke was shoving Fellaini off the ball in midfield, having a tremendous burst of pace to get forward and then bludgeoning his way through defenders with sheer power before rifling it in then no matter what the CA is, that's not Michael Owen at the time, or at any point in his career.

[ParanoidBuddha]

3 ore fa, Rivanov ha scritto:

In my first season the Champions League final was between FC Porto vs. Atletico Madrid. FC Porto won 3-1..
The Europa League final was between Valencia vs Arsenal. Valencia won 2-0.

So EPL teams are not always dominating.

Juve in the meanwhile sucks in almost all saves. It's not a provocation, I did many tests and I even asked to others and for most of them has been the same

[RocheBag]

I'm not too bothered about the Premier League being dominant because in FM buying players is more exact and success will generally follow the money. Whether the financial power of clubs like Real and Barca is reflected well enough in FM I'm not sure.

The issue for me though is English regens. England commonly win Euros and World Cups and no one needs to be reminded how unrealistic that is. England simply aren't on the way level of football world powers.

It's also common when you play into the future to see things like United winning champions leagues with an eleven including 7 or 8 players from their academy. The day a team of 8 englishmen win the champions league is the day I'll stand on my head and spit nickles.

[BMNJohn]

I suppose the takeaway is that some think (me included!) that league reputation is too much of a factor to a transfer decision when compared to club reputation. Because the EPL has both high reputation and high money, the effects snowball in a way where a lot of English clubs can buy whatever they want from whoever they want... even if it's certainly not the case IRL where big clubs don't let go their players, and players don't necessarily request to move out in such an extent and especially not at the very top levels to a more reputable league. Generally, when I hear of a player wanting to move to a specific league, granted they're not in a small country, they do it for the playing style more than just "reputation".

Or am I missing something?

[wardog]

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

Forewarning, its going to get a bit rambling here. I'll include numbers as well because its from FM titles more than 5 years ago, and has no relevance to what is done today.

First of all, lets get this out there to put a firm stamp on what @themadsheep2001 is saying. Last time I saw a mention from Miles, there were more than 1,000 FM researchers. Bear in mind that we all tend to be sorted into our nationality teams. I'm a club researcher, and I contribute to just Stoke. No other club at all in FM. There are numerous research teams, more specifically to give examples - there is a German research team. There's an Italian research team. It goes on and on, some cover nationalities exclusively, others cover larger areas from what I understand but then the research situation of FM in South America is beyond my knowledge because I don't need to know. So I can't claim certainty beyond knowing of a few other high profile nations research teams. Had some great exchanges down the years with people from across the spectrum of FM research, the internal SI testing team however (just not on public forums, mostly by e-mail). It even goes as far as Miles himself being involved in a discussion about Bojan.

I feel I should perhaps clarify some of what I've said before. There are absolutely guidelines. Broad picture, here is what we expect in the world of football generally speaking approach that indeed acts as a sanity check. I've seen numerous researchers mentioning these recently, and its seemed very bizarre to me. It likely serves as a more polite way in all honesty, of avoiding having to be a bit of a knob like I do at times (hello dynamic PA threads) pointing out to people why they're wrong or their suggestions make little impact. It has to be stressed... so many data posts are meaningless fluff because it either doesn't achieve what players think it achieves or it just arbitrarily makes CA's higher which we tend to avoid.

I've been at the research for 9 years now I think, this isn't to say I've got any greater degree of weight to what I say because I'm guessing the potential researcher you mention @RBKalle has been around even longer than I have. But, over the years, I've asked an awful lot of questions. I cannot stress how much credit goes to SI here for the amount they humour me and answer my questions. But it enables me to replicate players better I feel, and away from just using "high CA = good" and "low CA = bad" which can easily be the trap. 

- - -

Going back several years, to the early days, I had my guidelines and the guidelines would flesh something out to the tune of the key players at Stoke should be somewhere around 145CA. There was a bracket of expected CA's, I don't remember the ceiling, the ceiling might have been 145, it might have been 150. But back then it was probably 145 since it was when Stoke were lower-half Premier league. The key players then would've been Shawcross, Huth, Whelan and Fuller. It was actually very easy to create players with the CA's, but I was not particularly happy with it. I was early on in my time as a researcher as well, so you naturally gravitate towards thinking "well this is the way it has to be" rather than realising its just a loose framework.

Whenever I submit my research data, there's an enormous e-mail message outlining my thinking, what I've done & why. I don't know if this is the norm, but it gives my head researcher a bit of context for what I've done. 

In the end submitted Shawcross with a CA north of 150. Huth was around 150. Glenn Whelan was at or below 130 and Fuller was somewhere around 135. Not one of the key players were in the guideline figures. The first problem encountered, Barcelona kept buying Ryan Shawcross. There was a lengthy e-mail back and forth over this, things were tweaked a little but I made my point that at the time Ryan Shawcross was one of the very best basic defenders in the world. He couldn't hold a candle to those who could play the ball well, he couldn't hold a candle to those who stepped up into midfield. But for a brief spell (before back injuries got the better of him) he was extremely mobile, quick and very good at reading the game. Just for a brief example, look at the defending on that stunning Ibrahimovic overhead kick all those years ago now, of the two defenders there only one of them had any idea what was happening and tries to stop it. He came incredibly close to stopping it. 

I was never told I had to change it, I was never told "for the good of the game" it can't be like this. However, there was a point that came up. Why were Barcelona buying a limited central defender in the first place? There were some other changes that came from that in the background and Shawcross was fine in the game as he was. There were some issues with England calling him up a bit too regularly, but more because I think Liverpool used to be a regular club that would sign him but then their managers back then were more likely to do that than a Klopp would today. Stoke were also willing to part with him pretty cheaply, whereas in reality any time it came up we were demanding more than £20m.

Glenn Whelan also flagged up, he's playing every game yet he had a CA of "upper championship" level. His CA was wrong by the book, yet I feel it reflected the reality so well. Stoke spent millions upon millions on "better" players trying to upgrade Glenn Whelan. Wilson Palacios, Steven N'Zonzi, Gianelli Imbula, Dean Whitehead, Marc Wilson, Marko van Ginkel (loan), Steve Sidwell, Charlie Adam, Joe Allen. Whelan would be dropped, the new signing would feature in the midfield but before long, normality resumed. The best any of them could seemingly manage was to ultimately partner him in midfield. Bizarrely last season someone thought Darren Fletcher was a sure thing and the club let him go. 

I think Fuller was generally accepted as he was submitted, but to be honest if I were to rate Fuller today I'd rate him very differently than I did then just because I've learned so much more. 

Anyhow, there were questions from the head researcher, there were questions from other researchers, questions from testers, and even questions on the forums. I'm an incredibly open person on all fronts on these forums regarding my research and behind the scenes as well so I just present my thinking and there are sometimes changes when I've misunderstood or if there is consensus on a better way to replicate what I've said I'm trying to achieve but no one has ever pulled rank on me and said "we're changing this" in regards to what I submit. 

Over the subsequent years, numerous Stoke key players kept being included in the game as 130CA or less individuals. Yet I've quite openly talked about how I felt a 170CA+ Marko Arnautovic could've been a very real thing to include in the game. I used to frequently test this CA spread out on FM in private to see how it worked and I was never truly satisfied with the results. It too often went too far one way or the other, either he would be this marauding wide-man who could score for fun, or he'd be absolutely unmanageable and get high profile moves but never sticking anywhere. 

I've always been an advocate of the belief that a flat linear trajectory of CA is incredibly boring. A lot of people were arguing for Saido Berahino to have an enormous amount lopped off his CA last year, and admittedly he was represented wrong in the game but he had come into FM18 downgraded by the West Brom researcher in the January update of 17 and the very public announcements from Mark Hughes along the lines of "We want to build his match fitness up for next season". So it culminated in an early FM18 data set of Saido Berahino going on to achieve great things, which was obviously wrong and again this is where the questions to SI came in helpful. I think it was Paul Collyer who ended up providing the guidance on how to better replicate a footballer who is struggling with issues away from the game - and has in general seemingly lost a love for it. Since the Jan update on 18 now you have a player who in my experience is difficult to manage/motivate but if you put the effort in and work on it you can get performances from. 

- - -

As I said in another thread on the general discussion, it would be really nice if there were something much more informal for discussing players. It's one of the most fun parts for me about the research, actually being able to talk through why I've done what I've done and what the thoughts/view on that is with the head researcher because its trying to bring as true to life as possible the real world equivalents to FM.

So many posters don't realise that it's such a hard discussion to have though when they come into the thread talking about individual attributes, or comparing to another player for the basis of change. There's little context to work with, it's why more frequently I've asked people to check how they're playing in game. The absurd extremity would be to suggest if someone creates a 200CA player with bizarre stats, yet they play and behave in game exactly like the player they're based on then surely its right. Of course that's practically never going to be the case, but if that ends up being the most accurate way, then it is the right way. 

In truth its more likely to come down to somewhere 10-30CA points either side of a more reasonable starting point depending on the level of player but if say Michael Owen at the time he came to Stoke was shoving Fellaini off the ball in midfield, having a tremendous burst of pace to get forward and then bludgeoning his way through defenders with sheer power before rifling it in then no matter what the CA is, that's not Michael Owen at the time, or at any point in his career.

Firstly I was to say huge respect for the work you put in as a researcher. And I also know this year from spending more time in section on the forums for discussing that issue inlcuiding the Stoke forums that you guys are open to listening as long as there's reason behind a person coming on and saying I disagree with X and this is why. I've had a good few discussions in Scottish thread this year and even mentioned an irregular issue with transfers in your Stoke forum - which I think you suggested the most sensible solution. 

My opinion on England being too strong in game is nothing against researchers. I think some changes could be made the ca/pa and the way it's done in game. That could actually help researchers too. I posted about the pa one before and actually came from a discussion in the database forums that highlighted what I thought was an issue that no researcher could win with. 

I do think England is an issue. But I don't think its nessessarily a research issue. Honestly some of the solutions suggest lowering a ca by 10 points. But given the TV money and what no that would drastically cause the ai to gobble up even more talent. 

I honestly think the issue could be the transfer market itself. We see this in FIFA too. The premier League gobbles up everyone of decent ability in game. That creates an imbalance. One that getting right would be super hard. I mentioned earlier thread at the 18 I done a rangers save where I won champions league 3 times in a row and stoke who were upper mid table in prem were still more than capable of upsetting all my players the second they wanted them. That doesn't feel realistic to me. As much as me winning champions league 3 times in a row with rangers isn't realistic honestly once it's happened as it's a game where human involvement creates bizzare situations it should account of something like that. That even if a team from a non-major nation became a superpower Stoke would lose their better league pull.

That said that doesn't answer the national teams dominance. Which for me would be a bigger concern.

[Samelders]

52 minutes ago, BMNJohn said:

I suppose the takeaway is that some think (me included!) that league reputation is too much of a factor to a transfer decision when compared to club reputation. Because the EPL has both high reputation and high money, the effects snowball in a way where a lot of English clubs can buy whatever they want from whoever they want... even if it's certainly not the case IRL where big clubs don't let go their players, and players don't necessarily request to move out in such an extent and especially not at the very top levels to a more reputable league. Generally, when I hear of a player wanting to move to a specific league, granted they're not in a small country, they do it for the playing style more than just "reputation".

Or am I missing something?

Another problem might be, club reputation changes too fast. If City for example wins the league and CL in the first season, they will increase their reputation and become the most reputable club in the world, while IRL Reals three CL victories of late and the rich history of the club are counting much heavier and will keep Real on top.. Same goes for clubs such as Barcelona, Juventus and Bayern, and even Liverpool. They have something mythical that clubs like City, PSG and Chelsea totally lack!

[BMNJohn]

29 minutes ago, Samelders said:

Another problem might be, club reputation changes too fast. If City for example wins the league and CL in the first season, they will increase their reputation and become the most reputable club in the world, while IRL Reals three CL victories of late and the rich history of the club are counting much heavier and will keep Real on top.. Same goes for clubs such as Barcelona, Juventus and Bayern, and even Liverpool. They have something mythical that clubs like City, PSG and Chelsea totally lack!

I'd say more that the top competitions award reputation too much; because when playing as a lower league club, you can very well see how slow Reputation increases, but how it grows once you win a top European league; nevermind the Champions' League. As anecdotal as it is, I recall playing in Slovenia in FL17, and was consistently considered as an overachiever when winning my first CL after: getting to the group stages, getting in the KOs stages the following year, getting to the semis the next year, getting to the finals the year after that, tanking in the group stages to win the EL (which I did!), then winning the CL the year after. That's not just one big performance, it's, albeit completely unrealistically fast, consistent growth. Then after winning, I was straight-away one of the top clubs in the world! Even after winning the CL a few more times, it didn't prevent my players from requesting transfer because "wanna play in the Premier League/French Ligue 1/Spanish LaLiga boss, even though I'm at the best club in the world". Well obviously it's Slovenia and the economic factors and attractive of countries doesn't change much, nevermind youth rating; but while very linked to the topic at hand, this lack of fluidity is for another discussion...

I think the growth in reputation should be more evened out, where consistent good performances gives you higher Rep than it currently does, but winning the thing doesn't grant you as much Rep as it does currently. And competition reputation shouldn't trump the reputation of a club that is able to win said competitions to begin with!

[RBKalle]

5 ore fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

@RBKalle I'll say it again for those not listening. There is no special consideration of any kind. Please stop hinting or alluding there, because it's disingenuous

For the Nth time, I'm not saying it's on purpose to give the EPL (and English customers) an unfair advantage... If you asked me to rate some players, clubs or nations, I'd naturally tend to "overrate" those I like or know better, even subconsciously.

It's also disingenuous not acknowledging that often EPL sides can buy whoever they want, whenever they want, while they usually go on to win CL/EL and, even more worryingly England win Euros and World Cups. And it also happened with at least two previous generations of English players.

@santy001 Thanks for your detailed reply.

As already said, I'm not implying it's the researchers' "fault", especially when there IS a balance to be kept.

Indeed the issue goes much beyond a simple matter of "high CA = good", with Reputation, squad building and players development offering a much easier and predictable platform to build success on compared to real life.

I also remember some totally average player inexplicably attracting the interest of bigger clubs despite his CA being nothing to write home about. I submitted it to the head researchers (it was Italy this time) and I was reassured the CA was adequate to his and his club's level (which, upon further inspection, was true). He was likely just a great fit for his position, which made him a good addition to better clubs even though he shouldn't have been if going by CA only.

P.S. Over the years I've dabbed into db tweaking myself, and I found out my (as) unbiased (as possible) assessment of many players yield confusing CA outcomes... Some Serie A players dropped well below the relegation zone level (approx 130CA), while Scandinavian players went well over the same CA, meaning they'd be deemed "too good" for their domestic leagues.
So it still confuses me... If attributes weighing can sometimes override a low (or high) CA, it can still happen that apparently "weak" teams as far as CA goes can indeed overperform because they have an ideal attribute distribution?

If so, why are we fighting a futile battle about a value that can mean less than we think?

[tajj7]

What is all this nonsense? 

Let's look at some real life facts -

1. England youth sides have recently dominated World Youth Football, who are the current U20 and U17 Worlds Champions? That would be England, the England team itself just reached the semis of the World Cup with the youngest team at the competition.  Is it any surprise that England does well in game? It shouldn't be unless you are horribly biased, there are currently a lot of very promising young players about the English game. 

2. The likes of Barcelona, Bayern, Real Madrid and Juventus have MULTIPLE key players who are in their early to mid 30s, that means these players will decline, they all have rebuilding jobs on their hands.  The Juve team that played last night had 3 players under 27, most of that team was around or over 30. Barca have Messi, Basquets, Pique, Suarez, Vidal and Rakitic all in their early 30s. Real have Modric, Marcelo, Ramos, Benzema. You can't say the same about the EPL clubs as much, Man City have Silva, Aguero and Kompany, but then have the likes of Bernardo Silva and Jesus already at the club to basically replace them. Aside Milner, is there a guy in Liverpool's starting 11 who is over 30? Spurs attacking line is Kane 24, Alli, 22, Moura 26, Erikson, 26. 

3. The PL has the most money, 10 of the top 20 richest clubs in the World according to Deloitte are Premier League Clubs.  Have a real think about what this means, it means in reality there are SIX English clubs that have spending power that matches or exceeds the 2nd or 3rd richest clubs in most of the other leagues, sure Real, Barca, PSG and Bayern stand out, but then Atletico Madrid and Dortmund, basically the 3rd and 2nd best/richest clubs in those leagues, are less rich than SIX English clubs, not 1 or 2, but all six of them.  

 

What do we get when we all add that up, especially in game terms? 

6 very rich clubs, many with younger squads, clearly some very good young prospects in there (Rashford, Foden, TAA, Gomez, Winks, Alli) who have to do less rebuilding than many of the big European squads who generally have older key players.

Doesn't seem that far fetched to me that English clubs, when you basically have 6 elite clubs with most of their players yet to come into their peak and massive spending power to supplement that might appear in the latter stages of European competitions. 

 

 

 

[wardog]

1 hour ago, tajj7 said:

What is all this nonsense? 

Let's look at some real life facts -

1. England youth sides have recently dominated World Youth Football, who are the current U20 and U17 Worlds Champions? That would be England, the England team itself just reached the semis of the World Cup with the youngest team at the competition.  Is it any surprise that England does well in game? It shouldn't be unless you are horribly biased, there are currently a lot of very promising young players about the English game. 

2. The likes of Barcelona, Bayern, Real Madrid and Juventus have MULTIPLE key players who are in their early to mid 30s, that means these players will decline, they all have rebuilding jobs on their hands.  The Juve team that played last night had 3 players under 27, most of that team was around or over 30. Barca have Messi, Basquets, Pique, Suarez, Vidal and Rakitic all in their early 30s. Real have Modric, Marcelo, Ramos, Benzema. You can't say the same about the EPL clubs as much, Man City have Silva, Aguero and Kompany, but then have the likes of Bernardo Silva and Jesus already at the club to basically replace them. Aside Milner, is there a guy in Liverpool's starting 11 who is over 30? Spurs attacking line is Kane 24, Alli, 22, Moura 26, Erikson, 26. 

3. The PL has the most money, 10 of the top 20 richest clubs in the World according to Deloitte are Premier League Clubs.  Have a real think about what this means, it means in reality there are SIX English clubs that have spending power that matches or exceeds the 2nd or 3rd richest clubs in most of the other leagues, sure Real, Barca, PSG and Bayern stand out, but then Atletico Madrid and Dortmund, basically the 3rd and 2nd best/richest clubs in those leagues, are less rich than SIX English clubs, not 1 or 2, but all six of them.  

 

What do we get when we all add that up, especially in game terms? 

6 very rich clubs, many with younger squads, clearly some very good young prospects in there (Rashford, Foden, TAA, Gomez, Winks, Alli) who have to do less rebuilding than many of the big European squads who generally have older key players.

Doesn't seem that far fetched to me that English clubs, when you basically have 6 elite clubs with most of their players yet to come into their peak and massive spending power to supplement that might appear in the latter stages of European competitions. 

 

 

 

Ive already addressed point 1 on this thread and proven its irrelevant. 

The other 2 are valid points for 2-5 seasons in game

[tajj7]

24 minutes ago, wardog said:

Ive already addressed point 1 on this thread and proven its irrelevant. 

The other 2 are valid points for 2-5 seasons in game

No point 1 is extremely relevant, whether England can actually translate that into actual senior peformances on the pitch IRL depends on a multitude of factors, but in game terms it makes a lot of sense. 

And point 3 is valid going forward because in game the PL will always earn the most money and will always have more richer clubs than the other leagues. It's simple maths here, in reality , if we look at AI controlled teams so no user taking a team beyond it's level, France is only ever going 1, maybe 2 potential European winners, Germany, 2, maybe 3, Spain, maybe 3, Italy, 1-3, that is the financial reality.

England is consistently going to produce 6. It's a bigger pot to pull from so odds on there are going to be more English teams there and there about because essentially there are 6 big clubs not 1-3 like the other leagues. 

And as we can see from the CAs it's imagined nonsense anyway. 

Another thing I will point to is personally I think people massively over rate how good teams like Barca, Real, Juve, Bayern, PSG etc. actually are, based on them being flat track bullies most of the time. 

The amount of times these teams get 100 points and 100 goals over the last 10 - 15 years show how poor the leagues they are in actually are.

They are flat track bullies who are barely ever challenged. Whereas the PL, because it distributes the money more, means that all 20 teams put up more of a challenge to the bigger clubs on a regular basis. 

Which is where I find all this X player wouldn't get into X clubs rubbish, I'd flip it the other way, we actually see players come into the PL who highly rated in other leagues who barely make a splash here, look at Emerson for example at Chelsea, in game he is by far Chelsea's best full back obviously rated very highly by the Roma researcher, IRL he can barely get in the team. Naby Keita is rated 'world class' by the game, has not really done much IRL and is being kept out of the Liverpool team by a 33 year old James Milner, Fabinho has barely had a kick, Bakayoko last year is another example.  

There is a huge list of players successful in the European leagues who failed in the Premier League, and yet went back and were successful again.  

So I then find it hilarious that people some of the best players in PL teams wouldn't get into teams like PSG, Barca, Real etc. Last year Spurs reject Paulinho played 49 games for Barcelona in all competitions, and yet he struggled to get into a Spurs team that wasn't even that good back then.  Renato Sanches is making appearances for Bayern Munich this year when he couldn't even get into a relegated Swansea team last year. Krychowiak was a star performer for Sevilla, poor performer for West Brom. 

Examples like that make comments about the likes of Salah, Firminho, De Bruyne, Aguero, etc. not getting into top teams around Europe laughable IMO and not worth the time of day. 

Good players are good players and each club/nation has it's researchers, I see no evidence of bias anywhere. 

 

[RocheBag]

13 minutes ago, tajj7 said:

No point 1 is extremely relevant, whether England can actually translate that into actual senior peformances on the pitch IRL depends on a multitude of factors, but in game terms it makes a lot of sense. 

And point 3 is valid going forward because in game the PL will always earn the most money and will always have more richer clubs than the other leagues. It's simple maths here, in reality , if we look at AI controlled teams so no user taking a team beyond it's level, France is only ever going 1, maybe 2 potential European winners, Germany, 2, maybe 3, Spain, maybe 3, Italy, 1-3, that is the financial reality.

England is consistently going to produce 6. It's a bigger pot to pull from so odds on there are going to be more English teams there and there about because essentially there are 6 big clubs not 1-3 like the other leagues. 

And as we can see from the CAs it's imagined nonsense anyway. 

Another thing I will point to is personally I think people massively over rate how good teams like Barca, Real, Juve, Bayern, PSG etc. actually are, based on them being flat track bullies most of the time. 

The amount of times these teams get 100 points and 100 goals over the last 10 - 15 years show how poor the leagues they are in actually are.

They are flat track bullies who are barely ever challenged. Whereas the PL, because it distributes the money more, means that all 20 teams put up more of a challenge to the bigger clubs on a regular basis. 

Which is where I find all this X player wouldn't get into X clubs rubbish, I'd flip it the other way, we actually see players come into the PL who highly rated in other leagues who barely make a splash here, look at Emerson for example at Chelsea, in game he is by far Chelsea's best full back obviously rated very highly by the Roma researcher, IRL he can barely get in the team. Naby Keita is rated 'world class' by the game, has not really done much IRL and is being kept out of the Liverpool team by a 33 year old James Milner, Fabinho has barely had a kick, Bakayoko last year is another example.  

There is a huge list of players successful in the European leagues who failed in the Premier League, and yet went back and were successful again.  

So I then find it hilarious that people some of the best players in PL teams wouldn't get into teams like PSG, Barca, Real etc. Last year Spurs reject Paulinho played 49 games for Barcelona in all competitions, and yet he struggled to get into a Spurs team that wasn't even that good back then.  Renato Sanches is making appearances for Bayern Munich this year when he couldn't even get into a relegated Swansea team last year. Krychowiak was a star performer for Sevilla, poor performer for West Brom. 

Examples like that make comments about the likes of Salah, Firminho, De Bruyne, Aguero, etc. not getting into top teams around Europe laughable IMO and not worth the time of day. 

Good players are good players and each club/nation has it's researchers, I see no evidence of bias anywhere. 

 

I mean the bottom line is England have two world class players. Compare that to other football powers. England's regens are way too good and it's reflected in the unrealistic dominance of the national team.

[Samelders]

4 hours ago, tajj7 said:

What is all this nonsense? 

Let's look at some real life facts -

1. England youth sides have recently dominated World Youth Football, who are the current U20 and U17 Worlds Champions? That would be England, the England team itself just reached the semis of the World Cup with the youngest team at the competition.  Is it any surprise that England does well in game? It shouldn't be unless you are horribly biased, there are currently a lot of very promising young players about the English game. 

2. The likes of Barcelona, Bayern, Real Madrid and Juventus have MULTIPLE key players who are in their early to mid 30s, that means these players will decline, they all have rebuilding jobs on their hands.  The Juve team that played last night had 3 players under 27, most of that team was around or over 30. Barca have Messi, Basquets, Pique, Suarez, Vidal and Rakitic all in their early 30s. Real have Modric, Marcelo, Ramos, Benzema. You can't say the same about the EPL clubs as much, Man City have Silva, Aguero and Kompany, but then have the likes of Bernardo Silva and Jesus already at the club to basically replace them. Aside Milner, is there a guy in Liverpool's starting 11 who is over 30? Spurs attacking line is Kane 24, Alli, 22, Moura 26, Erikson, 26. 

3. The PL has the most money, 10 of the top 20 richest clubs in the World according to Deloitte are Premier League Clubs.  Have a real think about what this means, it means in reality there are SIX English clubs that have spending power that matches or exceeds the 2nd or 3rd richest clubs in most of the other leagues, sure Real, Barca, PSG and Bayern stand out, but then Atletico Madrid and Dortmund, basically the 3rd and 2nd best/richest clubs in those leagues, are less rich than SIX English clubs, not 1 or 2, but all six of them.  

 

What do we get when we all add that up, especially in game terms? 

6 very rich clubs, many with younger squads, clearly some very good young prospects in there (Rashford, Foden, TAA, Gomez, Winks, Alli) who have to do less rebuilding than many of the big European squads who generally have older key players.

Doesn't seem that far fetched to me that English clubs, when you basically have 6 elite clubs with most of their players yet to come into their peak and massive spending power to supplement that might appear in the latter stages of European competitions. 

 

 

 

What is this ignorant post? Read back the whole discussion before you make a fool out of yourself. 
 

1. Youth team championships is not a reliable measurement. Our u17 and u21 teams (Holland) won tournaments as well in the past. Did not give us any titles on senior level.. It's kind of cute you really have that much believe in your England squad, while every person from outside your island knows your national team is the definition of underperformance.. This Word Cup you had the easiest draw ever, but then you got asswhiped against the first serious opponent. The English national team is known for dissapointing in every tournament since I started watching football in 1994, a bunch of bottlers that fail in every penalty series. You just can't match the potential of teams such as Brazil, France, Germany, Spain and this generation of Belgium. Nope i really don't see England winning any major tournament any time soon (maybe history proves my point).. 

2. And they have the money to replace them in the coming years. Barca, Real and Bayern are still ahead in reputation and also have a lot of money to spend.. These clubs are just bigger than Englands so called "elite" clubs. Only United, Arsenal and Liverpool have some tradition being mythical and elite. While City, Chelsea and PSG are just bought elite clubs with no history on this level. Tottenham is not even elite, you can tell by their perfomance in Europe. In FM is see Tottenham or Arsenal knock-out teams such as Barcelona and Real in the first years ingame. Do you really think that will happen IRL?? 

3. PL has te money, but there is no guarantee they will surpas La Liga in the future. PL has had the money for years, and looking at the perfomances in the last couple of seasons I don't see such a trend starting yet. And I don't see any PL dominance at all, while in my FM simulations I ALWAYS get PL on top in the Euro Coëfficients, even in the first years ingame. 

[Samelders]

23 minutes ago, tajj7 said:

No point 1 is extremely relevant, whether England can actually translate that into actual senior peformances on the pitch IRL depends on a multitude of factors, but in game terms it makes a lot of sense. 

And point 3 is valid going forward because in game the PL will always earn the most money and will always have more richer clubs than the other leagues. It's simple maths here, in reality , if we look at AI controlled teams so no user taking a team beyond it's level, France is only ever going 1, maybe 2 potential European winners, Germany, 2, maybe 3, Spain, maybe 3, Italy, 1-3, that is the financial reality.

England is consistently going to produce 6. It's a bigger pot to pull from so odds on there are going to be more English teams there and there about because essentially there are 6 big clubs not 1-3 like the other leagues. 

And as we can see from the CAs it's imagined nonsense anyway. 

Another thing I will point to is personally I think people massively over rate how good teams like Barca, Real, Juve, Bayern, PSG etc. actually are, based on them being flat track bullies most of the time. 

The amount of times these teams get 100 points and 100 goals over the last 10 - 15 years show how poor the leagues they are in actually are.

They are flat track bullies who are barely ever challenged. Whereas the PL, because it distributes the money more, means that all 20 teams put up more of a challenge to the bigger clubs on a regular basis. 

Which is where I find all this X player wouldn't get into X clubs rubbish, I'd flip it the other way, we actually see players come into the PL who highly rated in other leagues who barely make a splash here, look at Emerson for example at Chelsea, in game he is by far Chelsea's best full back obviously rated very highly by the Roma researcher, IRL he can barely get in the team. Naby Keita is rated 'world class' by the game, has not really done much IRL and is being kept out of the Liverpool team by a 33 year old James Milner, Fabinho has barely had a kick, Bakayoko last year is another example.  

There is a huge list of players successful in the European leagues who failed in the Premier League, and yet went back and were successful again.  

So I then find it hilarious that people some of the best players in PL teams wouldn't get into teams like PSG, Barca, Real etc. Last year Spurs reject Paulinho played 49 games for Barcelona in all competitions, and yet he struggled to get into a Spurs team that wasn't even that good back then.  Renato Sanches is making appearances for Bayern Munich this year when he couldn't even get into a relegated Swansea team last year. Krychowiak was a star performer for Sevilla, poor performer for West Brom. 

Examples like that make comments about the likes of Salah, Firminho, De Bruyne, Aguero, etc. not getting into top teams around Europe laughable IMO and not worth the time of day. 

Good players are good players and each club/nation has it's researchers, I see no evidence of bias anywhere. 

 

So Barcelona, Real and Bayern are overrated.. Why are they toying with the English clubs in Europe?

[forameuss]

9 minutes ago, Samelders said:

1. Youth team championships is not a reliable measurement. Our u17 and u21 teams (Holland) won tournaments as well in the past. Did not give us any titles on senior level.. It's kind of cute you really have that much believe in your England squad, while every person from outside your island knows your national team is the definition of underperformance.. This Word Cup you had the easiest draw ever, but then you got asswhiped against the first serious opponent. The English national team is known for dissapointing in every tournament since I started watching football in 1994, a bunch of bottlers that fail in every penalty series. You just can't match the potential of teams such as Brazil, France, Germany, Spain and this generation of Belguim. Nope i really don't see England winning any major tournament any time soon (maybe history proves my point).. 

It might not be a reliable measurement in real life, but it's very much a good point when it comes to FM.  England have been incredibly successful at youth level recently, and even Scotland were in the past years.  But that success never translates further up the age groups (in fact, most of the players involved in Scotland's youth level European Championship runners-up finish aren't even in football anymore) and I'm not sure that's particularly well modelled in-game.  Probably because it's an incredibly subjective and woolly concept to have to model into a rigid system.  Closest would probably be England having their CA rise a lot earlier, but their PAs being lower, but that would be pretty limiting.

[Samelders]

2 minutes ago, forameuss said:

It might not be a reliable measurement in real life, but it's very much a good point when it comes to FM.  England have been incredibly successful at youth level recently, and even Scotland were in the past years.  But that success never translates further up the age groups (in fact, most of the players involved in Scotland's youth level European Championship runners-up finish aren't even in football anymore) and I'm not sure that's particularly well modelled in-game.  Probably because it's an incredibly subjective and woolly concept to have to model into a rigid system.  Closest would probably be England having their CA rise a lot earlier, but their PAs being lower, but that would be pretty limiting.

I agree that is hard to model in FM! I am just unsure about the unbelievable regen quality of English players in FM.. 

[RocheBag]

1 hour ago, forameuss said:

It might not be a reliable measurement in real life, but it's very much a good point when it comes to FM.  England have been incredibly successful at youth level recently, and even Scotland were in the past years.  But that success never translates further up the age groups (in fact, most of the players involved in Scotland's youth level European Championship runners-up finish aren't even in football anymore) and I'm not sure that's particularly well modelled in-game.  Probably because it's an incredibly subjective and woolly concept to have to model into a rigid system.  Closest would probably be England having their CA rise a lot earlier, but their PAs being lower, but that would be pretty limiting.

It's because English youngsters often come up through the lower leagues which is win at all costs. They focus on strength and pragmatism while other countries have lower divisions focused more on development than winning.

This results in England's youngsters being 'winners' but lacking the skills and technical ability to develop into world class players in the future.

It's the same reason Africa generally does well at youth level. Just different priorities.