I don't think player development is realistic

[jujigatame]

It's like as soon as a player hits 20, his attributes completely flatline unless he is getting first team play.  This doesn't feel realistic at all.  Players should still be able to make significant improvements (particularly to technical and physical attributes) when playing in U23 competitions and youth internationals.  This has always bugged me about FM but this year I'm really noticing it.  It's like a race to get your youth players as good as they can be before they hit 20 years old so they'll be decent enough to play in first team matches before they stop improving.

[FrazT]

If you think this is an issue, you would be best to provide some evidence to support this.

[jujigatame]

You mean in-game evidence?  Or IRL evidence that this is not realistic?

[Neil Brock]

1 hour ago, jujigatame said:

You mean in-game evidence?  Or IRL evidence that this is not realistic?

Both ideally. Essentially in game players need to be playing at a level which is suited to their ability in order to progress. Before the age of 18 quality training is essential to development, over the age of 18 playing matches at a suitable level becomes the key ingredient. Both elements impact development throughout however.

 

[jujigatame]

I can provide screenshots if necessary, but I think just about anyone should be able to pull up the "attribute changes" screen for a player in his early 20s who hasn't gotten first team play, and see that all attributes have stopped improving.

At the very least, I think that physical attributes like strength, pace, acceleration, etc. should be able to continue improvement via training alone.  Those are not even really football-specific attributes.  Can we agree on that at least?

[Neil Brock]

27 minutes ago, jujigatame said:

I can provide screenshots if necessary, but I think just about anyone should be able to pull up the "attribute changes" screen for a player in his early 20s who hasn't gotten first team play, and see that all attributes have stopped improving.

At the very least, I think that physical attributes like strength, pace, acceleration, etc. should be able to continue improvement via training alone.  Those are not even really football-specific attributes.  Can we agree on that at least?

It doesn't really work in the sense 'if someone spends x amount of time in the gym/training their physical attributes will continue to improve'. So no, with how training works in FM we would disagree with that. 

The general theory subscribed to is that footballers develop with matches.

[rdbayly]

38 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

It doesn't really work in the sense 'if someone spends x amount of time in the gym/training their physical attributes will continue to improve'. So no, with how training works in FM we would disagree with that. 

The general theory subscribed to is that footballers develop with matches.

I agree with the OP. Olympic sprinters do not get faster by simply participating in 100m races. In fact they participate in very few high level events in the run up to major competitions. They improve their pace and technique as a result of high quality training.

The same can be said for weightlifters. They get stronger with gym work.

Finally, Long distance runners improve their endurance as a result of specialist training such as high altitude / warm weather environments; not by running 2 or 3 headline marathons a season. 

[Neil Brock]

6 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

I agree with the OP. Olympic sprinters do not get faster by simply participating in 100m races. In fact they participate in very few high level events in the run up to major competitions. They improve their pace and technique as a result of high quality training.

The same can be said for weightlifters. They get stronger with gym work.

Finally, Long distance runners improve their endurance as a result of specialist training such as high altitude / warm weather environments; not by running 2 or 3 headline marathons a season. 

Essentially what I meant was that in-game a player continually works on all areas. Without exposure to certain additional elements they're unlikely to continually improve their overall footballing ability. If a player spent all their training time sprint training/weightlifting etc, they probably would increase their acceleration/strength, but would do so at the expense of other attributes used in football as they wouldn't be dedicating enough time to remain at the level they're currently at, let alone improve. 

[Seb Wassell]

Physical attributes develop best in younger players, you are unlikely to see vast physical improvements as a player ages.

As stated above, training is important to development, essential in fact before the age of 18, but once a player turns 18 it is playing matches at the correct level for his ability that becomes key.

Comparing footballers to weightlifters isn't really valid as the disciplines, required genetics and training/competing programmes are so completely different. Even within one sport there are notable exceptions to the established rules.

FM models a number of different development curves, all of which are influenced by the gameworld, User/AI input (training, matches, various events, etc.) and luck. Some players will peak young, others late, some will only develop early and then hit a wall, others will follow a smooth curve, some will fall off a cliff in their prime, some will stall before they even begin, whilst others seemingly play on forever and some players simply require a little bit of luck.

We work hard to improve player development each year, which includes adding variety, and welcome examples that appear to be bugged or contradict real-life evidence. Please do raise these examples in our bugs section, with supporting saves/screenshots and I'll investigate. I would like to say though that I believe our model does a great job of reflecting real-life footballer development. It is worth noting however that the FM19 Training Revamp will of course have altered some of the previously established wisdom on how to achieve X with player Y.

[Seb Wassell]

6 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

Essentially what I meant was that in-game a player continually works on all areas. Without exposure to certain additional elements they're unlikely to continually improve their overall footballing ability. If a player spent all their training time sprint training/weightlifting etc, they probably would increase their acceleration/strength, but would do so at the expense of other attributes used in football as they wouldn't be dedicating enough time to remain at the level they're currently at, let alone improve. 

To add to Neil's comment I'd like to say that both the above examples only pertain to physical improvements, which of course are achieved primarily in the gym. But football is not simply about being quick or strong, it is about transposing those attributes into a footballing context, which can only be achieved by actually playing football.

[rdbayly]

2 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

Physical attributes develop best in younger players, you are unlikely to see vast physical improvements as a player ages.

As stated above, training is important to development, essential in fact before the age of 18, but once a player turns 18 it is playing matches at the correct level for his ability that becomes key.

Comparing footballers to weightlifters isn't really valid as the disciplines, required genetics and training/competing programmes are so completely different. Even within one sport there are notable exceptions to the established rules.

FM models a number of different development curves, all of which are influenced by the gameworld, User/AI input (training, matches, various events, etc.) and luck. Some players will peak young, others late, some will only develop early and then hit a wall, others will follow a smooth curve, some will fall off a cliff in their prime, some will stall before they even begin, whilst others seemingly play on forever and some players simply require a little bit of luck.

We work hard to improve player development each year, which includes adding variety, and welcome examples that contradict reality or appear to bugged. Please do raise these examples in our bugs section, with supporting saves/screenshots. I would like to say though that I believe our model does a good job of reflecting real-life footballer development, but it is worth noting that the FM19 Training Revamp will of course altered some of the previously established wisdom on how to achieve X with player Y.

I'm certainly noticing more dramatic collapses of physical attributes (in some players) sooner than in previous releases. I welcome less predictability with regard to attribute development / drop-ff, but it is alarming to see a player drop off a cliff over a 6 month period.

[Seb Wassell]

1 minute ago, rdbayly said:

I'm certainly noticing more dramatic collapses of physical attributes (in some players) sooner than in previous releases. I welcome less predictability with regard to attribute development / drop-ff, but it is alarming to see a player drop off a cliff over a 6 month period.

Do you have an example of this? Was it a result of injury or poor physical attributes in the first place?

[Deisler26]

7 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

But football is not simply about being quick or strong

Someone tell Adama Traore... 

[rdbayly]

11 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

Do you have an example of this? Was it a result of injury or poor physical attributes in the first place?

I recall Pablo Hernandez in my Leeds save was rated as one of the my best players at the start of the game. I know he's 33, but by Christmas on my save he was completely finished. This player in particular is a key reason Leeds sit top of the (real life) Championship, and if anything, his performance levels are improving not declining to the point of not being able to compete. 

[Seb Wassell]

2 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

I recall Pablo Hernandez in my Leeds save was rated as one of the my best players at the start of the game. I know he's 33, but by Christmas on my save he was completely finished. This player in particular is a key reason Leeds sit top of the (real life) Championship, and if anything, his performance levels are improving not declining to the point of not being able to compete. 

Could you post this example in our bugs section please, with accompanying save? I'll take a look.

It's worth noting that whilst Pablo has indeed been vital to our performances this season (as he was in previous seasons) this has come as a result of the manager as much as it has come from him 'improving'. Over the longer term however, Pablo has indeed declined as a footballer, even changing his game to accommodate this. He used to be a winger for a Champions League club, he is now a playmaker (from wide or central) for a Championship club.

I would agree that if he falls off a cliff by Christmas this may be a little early, as Leeds AR I have set his physical attributes to match his real-life lack of Stamina etc. and perhaps these could be reviewed, but realistically how much longer do we think he has left?

[rdbayly]

6 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

Could you post this example in our bugs section please, with accompanying save? I'll take a look.

It's worth noting that whilst Pablo has indeed been vital to our performances this season (as he was in previous seasons) this has come as a result of the manager as much as it has come from him 'improving'. Over the longer term however, Pablo has indeed declined as a footballer, even changing his game to accommodate this. He used to be a winger for a Champions League club, he is now a playmaker (from wide or central) for a Championship club.

I would agree that if he falls off a cliff by Christmas this may be a little early, as Leeds AR I have set his physical attributes to match his real-life lack of Stamina etc. and perhaps these could be reviewed, but realistically how much longer do we think he has left?

Barry Douglas is another - This is his drop off from between the age of 30 and 31:

With a natural fitness rating of 13 I'd expect him to have maintained what he had until, say, 32 at least?

[Seb Wassell]

4 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

Barry Douglas is another - This is his drop off from between the age of 30 and 31:

With a natural fitness rating of 13 I'd expect him to have maintained what he had until, say, 32 at least?

Without the requested save I'm afraid I don't really have enough information to comment.

[Barcafan27]

I'm enjoying the variety of developmental paths this year; a lot of variance.  I'm managing Barcelona (so training is excellent) and some young players develop well as rotation players; some stall out.  Some players develop well on Barca B (while training with senior team); some don't.  Some players do well with loans; others don't develop at all.  Also, I've seen players who have "phases" of improvement where they improve a lot, stall and then improve again.  Some players seem to stall out for "no reason."  While this variance makes it harder to project and plan as a manager, they certainly make the game more fun and also (I think) more realistic.  

[jujigatame]

6 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

Essentially what I meant was that in-game a player continually works on all areas. Without exposure to certain additional elements they're unlikely to continually improve their overall footballing ability. If a player spent all their training time sprint training/weightlifting etc, they probably would increase their acceleration/strength, but would do so at the expense of other attributes used in football as they wouldn't be dedicating enough time to remain at the level they're currently at, let alone improve. 

They may not be able to make the sizable overall gains required to get them to a world-class level, but certainly at the very least they should be able to make gains in physical attributes like strength and speed through their mid-20s.  And I don't see why this would somehow make their technical abilities any worse.

More specifically I think the "flatlining" effect you see in players in their early 20s is not realistic.  I agree that gains should slow down as a player ages and enters his prime years but it seems crazy to indicate that a player will suddenly stop improving whatsoever despite daily full-time training by world-class coaches.  I haven't played soccer specifically since I was 13 years old but all of my (admittedly minor) experience with athletic activity as an adult makes me think this is not realistic.

[jujigatame]

Something about this topic just came to mind for me recently.  How does the game model attribute changes in preseason?  There are no competitive first team matches to be had in preseason, so does this mean attributes don't improve?  Or is there some sort of exception coded in for this period?

[KlaaZ]

12 hours ago, jujigatame said:

Something about this topic just came to mind for me recently.  How does the game model attribute changes in preseason?  There are no competitive first team matches to be had in preseason, so does this mean attributes don't improve?  Or is there some sort of exception coded in for this period?

Afaik friendlies will also improve attributes, though not as much since it'll probably be judged to be playing at a lower level. 

[sporadicsmiles]

I have to agree that much of what makes a footballer happens on the pitch, and that is how you learn and improve. Practise helps, of course, but it cannot replace the real thing. Real world situations are better for training almost every skill compared to practising it without any pressure. 

For physical attributes, thinks like acceleration or top speed really do not increase that much once you are not a child anymore. Sure you can get marginal gains, but you are very unlikely to become significantly faster, especially as a top quality athlete. Normally you see big gains for people who are not fit to start with when they are older. While training should encourage these attributes not to drop from their base level (if a player is not putting effort into training, you absolutely should see attributes dropping), it cannot be expected to find pace or acceleration of strength from nowhere. 

In terms of decline, I can give you examples like Wayne Rooney for every Ryan Giggs. It should vary but also be quite unpredictable. I have myself just suddenly hit a wall of "my god why does it hurt to do everything" in my early 30s, and it was bloody sudden as well.

[RBKalle]

In FM19 I've noticed a bit more of diversity in players' development.

Some of my young players have "acquired some of the teams negative traits", while others have been influenced positively. Nice touches that give a lot of extra flavour and unpredictability to the otherwise way too linear development model.

For years, players followed the pattern they were given. Say, a 16yo forward spawns with a "V-shaped" octagon (ie. good mental, physical and attacking skills, mediocre vision and technique), he'll likely develop like a V-shaped striker, unless you're willing to sacrifice his attacking prowess to get a marginal gain in Vision/Tech.
On one hand, it's ok, because you can't possibly turn a Djemba-Djemba into an Iniesta, no matter how hard you try and he trains.

On the other hand, it's a tad annoying that some of the quite flawed newgens you get can't really be "fixed", making them not worth the trouble. Or that the development of a good talent is already on a rather predefined path from the moment he enters the gameworld.

[jujigatame]

8 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

I have to agree that much of what makes a footballer happens on the pitch, and that is how you learn and improve. Practise helps, of course, but it cannot replace the real thing. Real world situations are better for training almost every skill compared to practising it without any pressure. 

For physical attributes, thinks like acceleration or top speed really do not increase that much once you are not a child anymore. Sure you can get marginal gains, but you are very unlikely to become significantly faster, especially as a top quality athlete. Normally you see big gains for people who are not fit to start with when they are older. While training should encourage these attributes not to drop from their base level (if a player is not putting effort into training, you absolutely should see attributes dropping), it cannot be expected to find pace or acceleration of strength from nowhere. 

In terms of decline, I can give you examples like Wayne Rooney for every Ryan Giggs. It should vary but also be quite unpredictable. I have myself just suddenly hit a wall of "my god why does it hurt to do everything" in my early 30s, and it was bloody sudden as well.

Physical prime generally isn't reached until mid-20s.  Even among professional athletes who are already quite fit, you are generally much stronger at age 25 than at age 18.  I do think FM models this correctly, but for some reason only if a player gets "first team" play.

Also having trained in grappling arts for 18 years, I can tell you that it is very possible to make big improvements in technical skills through training alone.  It's true that you do need to be "on the pitch" to improve, but that can be simulated.  In grappling (or boxing) it is through sparring, in a sport like football you'd generally have scrimmages or simulated matches with specific focuses.  This is a major component of training.

[Seb Wassell]

On 17/01/2019 at 22:56, jujigatame said:

They may not be able to make the sizable overall gains required to get them to a world-class level, but certainly at the very least they should be able to make gains in physical attributes like strength and speed through their mid-20s.  And I don't see why this would somehow make their technical abilities any worse.

More specifically I think the "flatlining" effect you see in players in their early 20s is not realistic.  I agree that gains should slow down as a player ages and enters his prime years but it seems crazy to indicate that a player will suddenly stop improving whatsoever despite daily full-time training by world-class coaches.  I haven't played soccer specifically since I was 13 years old but all of my (admittedly minor) experience with athletic activity as an adult makes me think this is not realistic.

The vast majority of training at that level is for maintenance, tactics and match preparation. There simply isn't the time to work on "developing" an already established player. Of course there are exceptions to this and players do not simply stop developing after 21 in FM. An often neglected point is that most players don't peak (reach their highest CA) in FM until much later than common wisdom would have you believe. They simply slow down.

[Seb Wassell]

20 hours ago, jujigatame said:

Physical prime generally isn't reached until mid-20s.  Even among professional athletes who are already quite fit, you are generally much stronger at age 25 than at age 18.  I do think FM models this correctly, but for some reason only if a player gets "first team" play.

Also having trained in grappling arts for 18 years, I can tell you that it is very possible to make big improvements in technical skills through training alone.  It's true that you do need to be "on the pitch" to improve, but that can be simulated.  In grappling (or boxing) it is through sparring, in a sport like football you'd generally have scrimmages or simulated matches with specific focuses.  This is a major component of training.

I would argue that grappling arts are significantly different from football.

There seems to be a misconception here that matches are the ONLY way a player will improve. This is not true. Both training and matches are required for progression. However once a player leaves their formative, malleable years behind they need match time to cement what they do in training and actually translate this into improving as a footballer.

It's also important to remember that this is all in a footballing context. Strength is not a player's bench PB, it is how demonstrably strong they are on the football pitch. In comparison to many other sports footballers are actually quite weak; having large amounts of muscle mass, especially in the upper body, is simply not useful for a footballer. They don't need to be strong on a global scale, only relative to other footballers, most of whom are slight, focusing on core strength and balance rather than simple power. Similarly, a ten second 100m time is all well and good, but footballers never run 100m in a straight line during a football match, 40-60m sprint times are much more relevant. Further to that, straight line speed is often less useful than agility and acceleration when it comes to determining how "quick" a player appears.

In age terms many of these physical attributes are determined early on in a player's career, especially as, unlike some other sports, footballers are not spending their peak years training for strength or speed exclusively. Under the hood each player has various points at which certain stages of development come to the fore, whether that be physical, mental or technical. This includes a player's decline. We've brought about much more variety in this area over the past couple of versions, but this is not to say we are not constantly making adjustments for the betterment of the progression module.

[LukasZ_VCF]

I have a striker that I bought from Bilbao I think on release clause like 2,8 mln when he was like 16, I loaned him to Betis for 1 season and now he is 18 and have 4 stars like Rodrigo, but he had 4 gold and 1 dark and now I see he has only 4 gold and 4 gold potential. why it's changed ? will he stop improving so fast, why the dark one is gone ?

[HUNT3R]

8 minutes ago, LukasZ_VCF said:

I have a striker that I bought from Bilbao I think on release clause like 2,8 mln when he was like 16, I loaned him to Betis for 1 season and now he is 18 and have 4 stars like Rodrigo, but he had 4 gold and 1 dark and now I see he has only 4 gold and 4 gold potential. why it's changed ? will he stop improving so fast, why the dark one is gone ?

Black stars represent uncertainty. As a player ages, coaches become more certain (in their opinion still though) of a player's potential.

[LukasZ_VCF]

5 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Black stars represent uncertainty. As a player ages, coaches become more certain (in their opinion still though) of a player's potential.

But If player is in the same team, playes the same games etc have good personality, determination then why some develop fast - reaching almost max of their potential at 18 and some can't reach it even before like 24 etc?

 

They have written something that we can't see how fast they will develop from the start?

[HUNT3R]

3 minutes ago, LukasZ_VCF said:

But If player is in the same team, playes the same games etc have good personality, determination then why some develop fast - reaching almost max of their potential at 18 and some can't reach it even before like 24 etc?

This is a completely different matter though. It's just like RL. Some develop quick, some don't. Some peak early, some late and most in the middle of that. There's nothing abnormal about a player peaking at 24. It should happen more than a player peaking at 18. It's also not out of the ordinary to see players peaking at 27/28.

[LukasZ_VCF]

1 minute ago, HUNT3R said:

This is a completely different matter though. It's just like RL. Some develop quick, some don't. Some peak early, some late and most in the middle of that.

so basically for some young players playing them in normal games in first team is just wasting a slot in your 1st eleven and possibly getting worse results?

[HUNT3R]

Just now, LukasZ_VCF said:

so basically for some young players playing them in normal games in first team is just wasting a slot in your 1st eleven and possibly getting worse results?

That's a strange conclusion to make. First team matches are always important for players over 18 and will help development, whether the development is far. Whether the development is fast or slow, first team matches will help. It has always been up to you as manager to manage your team, including who you pick. If you pick a weaker player, it is a risk, as it always has been. 

[LukasZ_VCF]

1 minute ago, HUNT3R said:

That's a strange conclusion to make. First team matches are always important for players over 18 and will help development, whether the development is far. Whether the development is fast or slow, first team matches will help. It has always been up to you as manager to manage your team, including who you pick. If you pick a weaker player, it is a risk, as it always has been. 

No I meant I thought that giving him a chance to play in 1st team often it will speed his development a lot, but now I know that even if players have the same personality, same stats, determination and age and plays the same the moment they were made there is some code that will let them develop faster, slower or don't develop at all ?

[HUNT3R]

Just now, LukasZ_VCF said:

No I meant I thought that giving him a chance to play in 1st team often it will speed his development a lot, but now I know that even if players have the same personality, same stats, determination and age and plays the same the moment they were made there is some code that will let them develop faster, slower or don't develop at all ?

Whether a player is at a point at his life where he can make fast or slow progress - either way he will need match time to develop as a player, otherwise you run the risk of it stalling altogether.

[santy001]

20 minutes ago, LukasZ_VCF said:

so basically for some young players playing them in normal games in first team is just wasting a slot in your 1st eleven and possibly getting worse results?

Haven't you basically just summed up the problem facing every football manager looking at a youth prospect in the history of football?

- - -

It's difficult to grasp what your point is because of course youth development should be an unknown entity and of course you shouldn't have some kind of checklist aspect that triggers development.

There are instances of things that can happen in games that spur a player on, or even hold them back because your reaction to the events play a part. It's not the defining feature of development, but you can utilise situations and if the player performs well to create a positive feedback loop that helps development. Mismanage it though, and even with things going well you can create or elicit complacency in the player. 

There's no one size fits all rule generally speaking, but game time offers more potential improvement than being left out of the side.

[bleventozturk]

20 hours ago, santy001 said:

Haven't you basically just summed up the problem facing every football manager looking at a youth prospect in the history of football?

- - -

It's difficult to grasp what your point is because of course youth development should be an unknown entity and of course you shouldn't have some kind of checklist aspect that triggers development.

There are instances of things that can happen in games that spur a player on, or even hold them back because your reaction to the events play a part. It's not the defining feature of development, but you can utilise situations and if the player performs well to create a positive feedback loop that helps development. Mismanage it though, and even with things going well you can create or elicit complacency in the player. 

There's no one size fits all rule generally speaking, but game time offers more potential improvement than being left out of the side.

This. I don't understand what the problem here is. I would absolutely hate it if I know for sure how much every player will develop based on how much I will play him, how much he trains on what, etc. Without some luck/unknown factor, where would be the fun??? FM is making strides in the right direction on this imo. Please never go back to high determination + matches = great development 100% of the time.

[Seb Wassell]

2 hours ago, bleventozturk said:

Please never go back to high determination + matches = great development 100% of the time.

We won't 

Two completely identical players given completely identical conditions can (and will) develop at a different rate to one another. This is because of changes we made a couple of years ago to development, and are ever refining.
Rather than A + B + C = X, where A, B and C are development factors and X is progression, meaning that providing A, B and C are constant then so is X ad infinitum, we now have a scenario where A + B + C = Y, where A, B and C are development factors but Y is progression within a certain boundary for a limited amount of time. Once any of A, B or C change we recalculate, once time is up we recalculate. Y is also no longer a defined value like X was, it falls within a range instead. As such there's now considerably more variance in what that progression figure will be at any time.

[FlorianAlbert9]

It's very great. 

And it's very pity that this system is totally limited by the (unrealistic) PA. 

[Seb Wassell]

34 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

And it's very pity that this system is totally limited by the (unrealistic) PA. 

This has been discussed at length elsewhere, so I am reticent to restart it here, but I have to strongly disagree. PA is an essential and realistic part of the progression module.

[FlorianAlbert9]

3 ore fa, Seb Wassell ha scritto:

This has been discussed at length elsewhere, so I am reticent to restart it here, but I have to strongly disagree. PA is an essential and realistic part of the progression module.

I know your (SI) position. 

But It is a irrealistic factor like have a god who decides champions' winner  (as far as we know).

[Seb Wassell]

15 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

I know your (SI) position. 

But It is a irrealistic factor like have a god who decides champions' winner  (as far as we know).

I appreciate what you are saying, but I would argue that is (loosely) exactly the case when it comes to natural ability.

When I was younger I was a GK, but as an adult I am 5'7''. All the training in the world isn't going to get me a contract as a professional goalkeeper. You could say my PA was predetermined if you like.
Clumsy example I know, but I'm running out of different analogies for this one 

[Seb Wassell]

On 22/01/2019 at 12:55, LukasZ_VCF said:

so basically for some young players playing them in normal games in first team is just wasting a slot in your 1st eleven and possibly getting worse results?

Just to pick up on a point here - if the young player in your first team is considered to be "wasting a slot" then he's probably not good enough to be playing at that level anyway, which can actually harm his development.

It's not just about playing matches, it's about playing matches at the right level for that player's ability.

[bleventozturk]

Totally agree with Sam here. Besides, unless you use an editor, you do not know the PA of any player. Neither do your assistant managers or scouts. They are just guessing based on what they see, just like they do in real life. When they see potential, they invest in that player . Sometimes it pans out, sometimes it doesn't. 

My only problem with the current development system is the positional versatility. It takes so long to retrain a player for a new position that totally suits their attribute distribution, yet they lose the familiarity so fast once you stop training them there and won't play him in that position all the time. Imo it is not well balanced. I think it should take less time to train them at new positions, as long as they have the versatility and a suitable set of attributes, and they should not forget the position so fast. Also, when I look at the positional versatility of the players in the original database, and compare it to the database from 15 years later when the game world is full of newgens, I see a drastic difference, caused by the positional development system currently used in the game. And I think that should be the main criteria, the comparison between now and 15 seasons later.

[FlorianAlbert9]

54 minuti fa, bleventozturk ha scritto:

Totally agree with Sam here. Besides, unless you use an editor, you do not know the PA of any player. Neither do your assistant managers or scouts. They are just guessing based on what they see, just like they do in real life. When they see potential, they invest in that player . Sometimes it pans out, sometimes it doesn't.

You're wrong. That's is one of the problem of PA (as it is now in game).

Staff know It. They don't know the exact number, but they know a range of it with a probability of mistake or something similar (i don't know if Seb can tell us how really works).

You can simply prove it with the in-game editor: change only the PA and you see a change in rating star

Ex: take a player A with 50 ca and 20 in determination and professionality but 55 in PA than with in-game editor change only determination and professionality to 1 but PA to 200. You will see star rising from low to max. 

IRL scout will tell you that the most promising is the one with higher determination and professionality. 

And It is the only way 'judging player potential' have sense in the game. 

In real scout judge potential ability only as of current ability, mental and physical attributes (that are the only ones you can say are, in some way, limited in devolpement)

 

[FlorianAlbert9]

2 ore fa, Seb Wassell ha scritto:

I appreciate what you are saying, but I would argue that is (loosely) exactly the case when it comes to natural ability.

When I was younger I was a GK, but as an adult I am 5'7''. All the training in the world isn't going to get me a contract as a professional goalkeeper. You could say my PA was predetermined if you like.
Clumsy example I know, but I'm running out of different analogies for this one 

Well, some physical attributes are hard to improve (like pace) and some are impossible (like height). 

But Sorry if i'm rude, but your height is not the reason you aren't a professional

look at Conejo Perez, goalkeeper with 56 caps for Mexico. 

and i bet there are many others. 

(Even in NBA world).

[Phillybear]

2 hours ago, Seb Wassell said:

Just to pick up on a point here - if the young player in your first team is considered to be "wasting a slot" then he's probably not good enough to be playing at that level anyway, which can actually harm his development.

It's not just about playing matches, it's about playing matches at the right level for that player's ability.

Does that mean his match rating in the first team has an impact on development?

[bleventozturk]

3 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

 

IRL scout will tell you that the most promising is the one with higher determination and professionality. 

 

 

That is simply not true. It is a factor, yes, but far from being the only one.

I've been there as an athlete and a part time coach, and for example you hear a phrase like this one a lot: "... has tremendous potential, but he is not dedicated enough". In FM terms, they are talking about that high PA player with low determination and professionalism. 

[Arnoldzhu]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw4SjZjUwAEUUom.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw4SkfWUcAAc3bY.jpg

The physical strength alone can change remarkably perhaps?  

[FlorianAlbert9]

6 ore fa, bleventozturk ha scritto:

That is simply not true. It is a factor, yes, but far from being the only one.

I've been there as an athlete and a part time coach, and for example you hear a phrase like this one a lot: "... has tremendous potential, but he is not dedicated enough". In FM terms, they are talking about that high PA player with low determination and professionalism. 

No, sorry, you're wrong.

When they said that, they are meaning: the athlete has a great ability for his age, but has poor work dedication. That in FM term, means player have an high CA but poor mental stats like professionalism, determination or also continuity. (In fact in FM you can get "promising" player in description for his CA )

The phrase you quote from my post is meaningless without the the part before. That was: if you have the exaclty same person - same CA - but for mental, IRL scout will judge higher in potential the one with higher mental attributes. While in FM scout will judge higher the one with higher PA.

PA is a magic attributes, like god.

Maybe there is, maybe not. But at now we didn't have prove and for sure no scout can know It.

[FlorianAlbert9]

7 minuti fa, Arnoldzhu ha scritto:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw4SjZjUwAEUUom.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw4SkfWUcAAc3bY.jpg

The physical strength alone can change remarkably perhaps?  

Yes, but attributes like pace or injuries pr. are harder to improve. 

Height is another stuff you cannot really improve (and that means jumping attributes can improve little)