Current and Potential ability

[LukasZ_VCF]

I know what it is and that max value is 200 but what really that mean?

 

I mean like when I add players stats it's much more over 200 points to what does it mean if someone have 150 or someone have 200 where is the difference? For example I have a player with potential like 190+ I checked using genie scout and someone who was already in game like Trent-Arnold and he have much less but I think he have more points and still can improve a little bit...

 

So which stats should I add ? What that numbers really mean ?

[santy001]

Well on one hand its the limit, but it really doesn't mean anything. 

It's impossible to hit 20 in everything that uses up CA. There's that very simple aspect that a bigger number is better. However, its an incredibly nuanced system that does not mean one player having a bigger number than another means they are the better player.

There is no simple answer to what stats should you add to make a player better. Different attributes suit a different role, for example, were I to "build a player" with my researcher knowledge in my formation, my left back would be entirely different to my right back. One of the first things I'd do with an ideal segundo volante I was building would be to make him 6'10" which isn't even an attribute you might typically think of but if I were to build my perfect one that is how tall he would be. Yet someone else could tell me what they want their player in the same position/role to be and the stats I'd use to achieve that for them would be completely different.

It means as much as you want it to ultimately, I can build a 200 CA striker who will struggle to score 10 goals a season in any system, and I can build a 130CA striker who will score 40+.

[optimusprimal82]

As i understand it, PA is a numerical 'pool' that any attribute increases are debited from, so effectively if 'finishing' increases you've 'spent' n PA (obviously don't know what the numerical ratio is).

So so true what Santy said though - people get so hung up on PA, as did I back in the day when i discovered genie etc. Since ditching genie & letting go of PA and focusing on attributes (especially determination and player mentalities) I've found success much easier to come by; not saying don't buy a high PA player, just as suggested, the extra points can go to the entirely wrong attributes - a defender with 200 PA, 20 for tackling/position/pace/acceleration/teamwork/marking/decisions/jumping/heading may sound like a dream, but if he has a 4 for concentration he's still likely to do a Djimi Traore more often than you'd like, and no i don't mean win a champions league winners medal  

Quick example from my team now, two great young strikers;

Both very similar but if i were to give most people a choice, I expect they'd take the former, as would I - overall better stats and higher PA? Yet in the world of FM, the second guy plays much better/scores far more goals;

TBH they're both great, but illustrates my point. We'll ignore this guy that united just signed, stupid stupid player >sigh<

[FlorianAlbert9]

1 ora fa, santy001 ha scritto:

It means as much as you want it to ultimately, I can build a 200 CA striker who will struggle to score 10 goals a season in any system, and I can build a 130CA striker who will score 40+.

(I really don't know if a such great difference in CA point can deliver a such high difference in stats as in example, but in general, as with a 180 vs 200, it's a right way).

That's 'cause there are important attributes that doesn't cost CA: continuity, important matches, natural fitness and injuries pro. 

It's like in in real Life: if you wanna win World Cup, you should prefer a player like Griezmann than a player like Messi or CR7.

 

[LukasZ_VCF]

I meant something else...

 

maybe this way I will be more precise.

 

So I was looking for RB's better or same like Trent - Arnold and I coudn't find any... so I took genie scout and checked how come his stats are so high...

 

So Trent-Arnold have PA 170

My newgen RB have PA 193

 

So I tick the box show potential abilities and that's how they look like when they reach max PA:

 

 

When I added all points Trent who have 23 points less to distribute still have more points ...

 

So how this works what are CA and PA exactly?

 

I thought that the players with higher PA will have much more points since they have more points to distribute?

So I thought they might be located better or worse depends on the player but still there will be difference like for player who have 200PA you will took the player with 150PA and he will have 50 points less?

 

 

[herne79]

PA is nothing more than a cap used by the game to ensure players don't develop exponentially.  CA is the measurement used to compare actual development against the PA.  This is why CA and PA are hidden, because they are tools used by the game.

Obviously we can't give every player a PA of 200 because then we'd have a database full of Messis.  So PA is structured to ensure a good distribution of different levels of player throughout the database.  So we'll typically see very few players with extremely high PA but many with a very low PA.  (This is a simplistic view, santy above explains in greater detail).

It's only users with access to an editor tool who see CA and PA and use it as some sort of gauge to assess how "good" a player may be - but that's not what it's designed for.

Re. your other question - different roles have different weightings for attributes.  So Tackling may "cost" a fair amount of CA for a defender, but hardly register for a striker for example.

[LukasZ_VCF]

4 minutes ago, herne79 said:

PA is nothing more than a cap used by the game to ensure players don't develop exponentially.  CA is the measurement used to compare actual development against the PA.  This is why CA and PA are hidden, because they are tools used by the game.

Obviously we can't give every player a PA of 200 because then we'd have a database full of Messis.  So PA is structured to ensure a good distribution of different levels of player throughout the database.  So we'll typically see very few players with extremely high PA but many with a very low PA.  (This is a simplistic view, santy above explains in greater detail).

It's only users with access to an editor tool who see CA and PA and use it as some sort of gauge to assess how "good" a player may be - but that's not what it's designed for.

Re. your other question - different roles have different weightings for attributes.  So Tackling may "cost" a fair amount of CA for a defender, but hardly register for a striker for example.

That's why I took 2 Right Backs

 

I mean so if we have player with CA& PA 170 can he still have more points distributed than player with 193 CA&PA?

 

That it mean that player have other points than CA&PA like base individual points at start or something that are not included in CA points ?

 

Because it seems like player with CA 150 and with CA 200 could have the same number of points and not like the player with CA 200 have 50 points more than the player with CA 150

[santy001]

The way you're looking at it with how you're just counting the attribute points up is completely down the wrong track @LukasZ_VCF.

It's very difficult for me to explain it perhaps in the right way for you without inadvertently breaching my Non-disclosure agreement with SI so let me try and steer you more on the right path without getting too in detail.

Ultimately physical attributes eat up a lot of CA. To be as fast as its showing your regen could be (and I'm 99% sure these prediction tools aren't all that reliable) it will cost a huge amount of his ability. 

- - -

Trent Alexander Arnold is the much better footballer, your regen is the much better athlete should he develop like that. 

[LukasZ_VCF]

4 minutes ago, santy001 said:

The way you're looking at it with how you're just counting the attribute points up is completely down the wrong track @LukasZ_VCF.

It's very difficult for me to explain it perhaps in the right way for you without inadvertently breaching my Non-disclosure agreement with SI so let me try and steer you more on the right path without getting too in detail.

Ultimately physical attributes eat up a lot of CA. To be as fast as its showing your regen could be (and I'm 99% sure these prediction tools aren't all that reliable) it will cost a huge amount of his ability. 

- - -

Trent Alexander Arnold is the much better footballer, your regen is the much better athlete should he develop like that. 

Hmm so now in game Trent Arnold have pace 14 and accel.15

regen pace 15 and accel.16

 

so let's say i bought Arnold and will train his pace and accel. to make same as regen 15 and 16      1 point here and there so = 2 points added

 

and let's say I will train regen changing training to make him to have stats like Trent Arnold so teoretically my regen should have same stats like Arnold + 23 points spare (because of higher PA 170<193) not distributed shouldn't be it like that?

 

 

[santy001]

You're moving in the right direction, but still thinking of it a bit incorrectly.

You can't make a direct comparison between Trent Alexander Arnold and this regen on their abilities. Even if you could perform the very difficult feat of getting everything similar they could still have substantially different CA's because of something like footedness and positions. They of course will have a lot in common but it still doesn't work for a true direct comparison.

- - -

Honestly, I'd have to suggest that you put this to one side and don't worry about it in the detail you're looking at. You're trying to get exact information for a system which is best utilised in broad terms. 

10 CA can be +2 to an attribute or it can be +15 across 4 or 5 attributes. You also can't directly build players through training and development to specification, its just a directing system to give an edge in some areas but again this is not a defined principle of the game. 

If your regen develops like that model in the screenshot, he will never be as good a player as Alexander Arnold. However, he will have an excellent niche element to his game that you could build an avenue to exploit in a tactic that Alexander Arnold would be much less effective at. This is the beauty of FM.

For me, that regen is nothing more than a late impact sub player in a system that uses an extremely attacking RB. But for someone else he could be something else entirely. Or I would actually consider making him a box to box midfielder, because he has some attributes I really like the look of for that role. I'd never say, even at his best, I'd take him over Alexander Arnold at RB though. But that's just my personal decision, based upon how I play the game.

[JordanMilly]

35 minutes ago, LukasZ_VCF said:

Hmm so now in game Trent Arnold have pace 14 and accel.15

regen pace 15 and accel.16

 

so let's say i bought Arnold and will train his pace and accel. to make same as regen 15 and 16      1 point here and there so = 2 points added

 

and let's say I will train regen changing training to make him to have stats like Trent Arnold so teoretically my regen should have same stats like Arnold + 23 points spare (because of higher PA 170<193) not distributed shouldn't be it like that?

 

 

Different attributes cost more than others, depending on the player's role. Whilst TAA may have more attribute points overall, this is because he has a number in areas that aren't important or essential for a Right Back (such as corners, finishing, long shots, free kicks, etc), and so cost much less in terms of CA points.

[LukasZ_VCF]

1.I thought if player have the same age, height, character, traits etc and more PA with similiar attributes right now than he will be better than the other one since he have much more PA points limit so he can reach higher level because of the spare points

2.So you are saying that the higher attribute is the more CA it takes to be that high ?

[santy001]

In regards to your first point, in simple terms yes. But it's more complicated than that in reality. Two similar players can be very similar, but just 1 or 2 small differences can create a big difference.

In regards to the second point, not exactly what I'm saying is that even with 2 similar players if gaining an attribute costs +5 CA (it doesn't, but I'm just using it as an example) it could, for another similar but slightly different player cost +6CA. So you could have a situation in which both players have 10 for an attribute, but it costs 50CA for one player, and 60CA for the other. For a third player it might be 55CA. Again this is not using any real numbers, but for demonstrative purposes. So even when they're similar, there's potential for difference. 

- - -

As I said, ultimately you won't gain anything from delving into this because the game isn't set up to make it a mechanical or predictable process. While it is a general rule that the higher number is more likely to be better, the reality is that you will only find out which is better given any two players by playing them both and seeing how they do with the rest of your players. 

[enigmatic]

The short answer is that different attributes cost different amount of CA points (and it's different for players in different positions). In theory, this is according to how useful the attribute is to that position, but the calculation isn't perfect, and some attributes which are very useful in improving a player's performance like Determination aren't counted at all (because Determination isn't really a skill)

Trent has much higher scores in Flair, Aggression, Determination and slightly higher in Natural Fitness abd, which don't get counted in the CA (even though I would say all of them were useful to a player). He is also better at set pieces, which doesn't count for very much CA.

Another point: afaik the screenshots you show are from a third party editor guessing how a player might look at peak ability. It might not do the calculation accurately.

[LukasZ_VCF]

1 hour ago, enigmatic said:

The short answer is that different attributes cost different amount of CA points (and it's different for players in different positions). In theory, this is according to how useful the attribute is to that position, but the calculation isn't perfect, and some attributes which are very useful in improving a player's performance like Determination aren't counted at all (because Determination isn't really a skill)

Trent has much higher scores in Flair, Aggression, Determination and slightly higher in Natural Fitness abd, which don't get counted in the CA (even though I would say all of them were useful to a player). He is also better at set pieces, which doesn't count for very much CA.

Another point: afaik the screenshots you show are from a third party editor guessing how a player might look at peak ability. It might not do the calculation accurately.

I am aware of  that

 

I am playing without hidden attributes and I was trying to find someone like Trent and I coudn't it's like he have too much attribute points for his potential...

 

So I was wondering if there will be a player on the same position Right Back with higher potential than I should be able make him even better than Trent but it seems like he woudn't be able to be like him even if i would change training daily and set it just for developing that player so I just can't understand how it works...

 

So where can I find which attributes don't take CA points and which ones get so low but can give you a lot for example if I would like to make someone to take long throws or for corners etc? and how to train them efficiently ?

[santy001]

6 hours ago, LukasZ_VCF said:

So where can I find which attributes don't take CA points and which ones get so low but can give you a lot for example

While it's not a secret which attributes cost no CA, how much CA those that do count and how much they do cost is not made publicly available. Long long ago the system was a little simpler and easier to understand, and so it meant by training any player to be natural in the position he was good at, and competent in central defence and competent in central midfield and maintain at these levels you could fudge the system in place at the time and get super-players at their CA.

Ultimately you are looking at it in a way that's unintended, so there won't be the help there for it. You can't really control where players gain attributes, so you can't cheese up a load of low weighting attributes but for example what's the point of having a RB with long throws if your team doesn't use long throws? 

Train the player in a way that fixes his weaknesses in your formation. If you like your RB dribble forward with the ball, then you need to improve his dribbling - because the technique and first touch are there already. Again, if you want him getting crosses into the box, that needs to be improved. His off the ball could do with improving as well.

On the flipside, if you just want a more defensive full back, then his tackling needs some improvement. Ideally his bravery would be a bit higher, but he's got some good stats in anticipation, positioning and marking which combined with his speed and strength should be powerful aides to his performance. 

- - -

The one bit of information I can give you though is that the consistency and important matches being considerably lower mean you're always more likely to get a good game out of Alexander Arnold than your regen. Depending on some attributes not included there like professionalism and ambition your regen could be significantly weaker behind the scenes despite looking superficially at this stage he should be a better player in the long run.

[FlorianAlbert9]

8 ore fa, LukasZ_VCF ha scritto:

So where can I find which attributes don't take CA points and which ones get so low but can give you a lot for example if I would like to make someone to take long throws or for corners etc? and how to train them efficiently ?

You could make test using editor (both pre- or in-). When you change an attributes, you will see a change in aspected CA.

The attributes that doesn't cost CA are: important matches, Aggression, consistency, flair, fitness, injuries p (maybe i miss something else).

Little OT: i always find irrealistic that attributes cost a different amount of CA for different roles: IRL training shooting is not easier if you are a defender or marking is not easier for a striker. 

That's something SI will get rid off and change. 

[santy001]

49 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

IRL training shooting is not easier if you are a defender or marking is not easier for a striker. 

It's not that way in the game either. 

It costs less CA for a defensive player to gain +1 finishing than it does an attacking one. That has nothing to do with the "ease" of it being acquired through training however. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

3 ore fa, santy001 ha scritto:

It's not that way in the game either. 

It costs less CA for a defensive player to gain +1 finishing than it does an attacking one. That has nothing to do with the "ease" of it being acquired through training however. 

Thank for the explanation

That's better,( but i think attributes' weight should be fixed)

 

 

[jcp1417]

so quick question, and i'm sorry to hijack this. if i set a player's CA below the recommended CA, would he then have more room to grow? Like if I took a player with a CA/PA of 75/100 and made his CA 25, would he then actually progress as if he had 75 more PA?

[santy001]

Attributes are normalised around the CA, and never the other way around. 

So if you set a player to have 100CA and give him 20's in everything, attributes will be scaled down arbitrarily until the player has an attribute spread worth 100CA.

Alternatively, if you set everything to 1's it will scale them up arbitrarily, again until the player has an attribute spread worth 100CA. 

There's no process in which you get to tell the game that a certain spread of attributes is a certain CA and it will register/accept/define that in any tangible way. It will simply adjust attributes until they fit the CA set for the player. 

[jcp1417]

16 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Attributes are normalised around the CA, and never the other way around. 

So if you set a player to have 100CA and give him 20's in everything, attributes will be scaled down arbitrarily until the player has an attribute spread worth 100CA.

Alternatively, if you set everything to 1's it will scale them up arbitrarily, again until the player has an attribute spread worth 100CA. 

There's no process in which you get to tell the game that a certain spread of attributes is a certain CA and it will register/accept/define that in any tangible way. It will simply adjust attributes until they fit the CA set for the player. 

so what you're saying is that a player will perform based on his CA and not necessarily the individual ratings?

[LukasZ_VCF]

But from what are you saying is it possible that you will have the same players like twins same personality, same height etc everything cloned and for 1 game can choose that 20 finishing cost 20 points and for the other 50 points? even if they are the same in everything?

[santy001]

21 minutes ago, jcp1417 said:

so what you're saying is that a player will perform based on his CA and not necessarily the individual ratings?

Not at all, I'm saying the individual ratings will move - arbitrarily - to match the CA. So if you drop Messi's CA from whatever it is right now, down to 100 he'll just start losing attributes at random. So you might end up with Lionel Messi only having 5 finishing, 5 pace, 5 acceleration, 5 dribbling but his technique stays up at 19/20. 

- - -

18 minutes ago, LukasZ_VCF said:

But from what are you saying is it possible that you will have the same players like twins same personality, same height etc everything cloned and for 1 game can choose that 20 finishing cost 20 points and for the other 50 points? even if they are the same in everything?

For 2 identical players, it will be the same so if you made an exact clone of one then it would indeed be the same. My point was that just because you were looking at two RB's it didn't mean everything was the same. Footedness comes into play because it costs CA. Positions, and the proficiency to which they can play them play a part in how much CA attributes cost. Height generally acts as a ceiling to jumping reach, so these little bits and pieces play a part.

[jcp1417]

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

Not at all, I'm saying the individual ratings will move - arbitrarily - to match the CA. So if you drop Messi's CA from whatever it is right now, down to 100 he'll just start losing attributes at random. So you might end up with Lionel Messi only having 5 finishing, 5 pace, 5 acceleration, 5 dribbling but his technique stays up at 19/20.

Interesting. So if I wanted a player to quick develop, I’d just set his CA higher?

[santy001]

2 minutes ago, jcp1417 said:

Interesting. So if I wanted a player to quick develop, I’d just set his CA higher?

Well it's not really developing then is it? It's like saying you want to make some cheese, and buying a block from the shop. You're just getting an immediate end product. 

As I said, its a very arbitrary process from the best of my understanding. So there is no way to really mould it as you want, it just happens. Whether it happens to attributes that are useful or not is a different matter entirely.

[LukasZ_VCF]

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

Well it's not really developing then is it? It's like saying you want to make some cheese, and buying a block from the shop. You're just getting an immediate end product. 

As I said, its a very arbitrary process from the best of my understanding. So there is no way to really mould it as you want, it just happens. Whether it happens to attributes that are useful or not is a different matter entirely.

But If I have a regen with so huge potential shoudn't I be able to make him like Trent Arnold and then even better than him?

 

It's like Arnold would be AAA and the other would end up like AAA+23? (having the attributes equal like Trent Arnold and then 23 PA distributed in other attributes making him better at the end?)

[santy001]

@LukasZ_VCF it depends what you mean with that.

I mean, they're two separate players. There's no "Alexander Arnold" training regime that makes you develop the same way he has. You don't have such strict control over how a player develops. 

Just... play the youngster, train him and see how he develops. It feels like you're trying to impose something that is just completely impossible in game, and in real life as well. You couldn't go back in time 15 years and tell Messi to become Ronaldo. They're different players, and so they will always be different.

You're never going to get Trent Alexander Arnold + 23PA with this regen because that isn't who this regen is. This regen is the player you've got with the PA he's got. If what you really want is to see Alexander Arnold if he had 23 more PA, then just use the editor to give him more PA and make him younger so he can develop into it. 

[LukasZ_VCF]

5 minutes ago, santy001 said:

@LukasZ_VCF it depends what you mean with that.

I mean, they're two separate players. There's no "Alexander Arnold" training regime that makes you develop the same way he has. You don't have such strict control over how a player develops. 

Just... play the youngster, train him and see how he develops. It feels like you're trying to impose something that is just completely impossible in game, and in real life as well. You couldn't go back in time 15 years and tell Messi to become Ronaldo. They're different players, and so they will always be different.

You're never going to get Trent Alexander Arnold + 23PA with this regen because that isn't who this regen is. This regen is the player you've got with the PA he's got. If what you really want is to see Alexander Arnold if he had 23 more PA, then just use the editor to give him more PA and make him younger so he can develop into it. 

No I just want my RB who is 17 right now 2 stars from 5 (last one is dark) to develop as attacking right back so I am adding a lot of - offensive - wing attack and technique - creating chances to train him dribbling and crosses etc and I thought with that I would be able to make him similiar like Trent

[jcp1417]

3 hours ago, santy001 said:

Well it's not really developing then is it? It's like saying you want to make some cheese, and buying a block from the shop. You're just getting an immediate end product. 

As I said, its a very arbitrary process from the best of my understanding. So there is no way to really mould it as you want, it just happens. Whether it happens to attributes that are useful or not is a different matter entirely.

ok so if I change a player from 50/100 CA/PA to 100/100 then all his attributes will immediately change to meet 100 CA?

[phnompenhandy]

3 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

ok so if I change a player from 50/100 CA/PA to 100/100 then all his attributes will immediately change to meet 100 CA?

Yes, if he's old enough. If he's a youth the AI might lop off some of the CA and lower the attributes.

[gavinski33]

I just got this little guy in the intake, can I train him to be Trent too? Pretty please

[gavinski33]

Sorry, that was a bit narky. It's late and I've run out of tequila. And Wigan lost the rugby. My poorly pointed out point is that you should just play the game, shouldn't you? Find out what works for you without editors and inside mechanics and figuring out the science of it all. You'll go all Beautiful Mind scribbling on blackboards if you tried to work out all the algorithms in this game

 

[LukasZ_VCF]

 

2 hours ago, gavinski33 said:

Sorry, that was a bit narky. It's late and I've run out of tequila. And Wigan lost the rugby. My poorly pointed out point is that you should just play the game, shouldn't you? Find out what works for you without editors and inside mechanics and figuring out the science of it all. You'll go all Beautiful Mind scribbling on blackboards if you tried to work out all the algorithms in this game

 

I've asked that because I am in year 2023 and from what I can see you don't have the players developed like the real players right now...they are just like Right Defender defensive, like really simple and one dimensional...

 

And after searching manually all the right backs using filters attribute to attribute I decided to check it out

[santy001]

Players come through the youth systems with a position they can play but it doesn't necessarily mean that is their most effective position. This mirrors real life enormously, the roles at youth level are often far simpler in comparison to the senior game and so when you start to get youngsters in the first question you should always be asking is where do I think this player is best?

That RB as I said could be a brilliant RB if all you want is an athlete who is reactionary in defense. Personally I wouldn't be considering him for that position in my team because its the right hand side where I need to have a player who can dribble and cross, as well as be fast to create chances. 

Based on the stats of your regen RB he's likely above 6'0" and potentially closer to 6'4" which would make him ideal for me in a midfield role. I'd personally be using him as a BBM or a Segundo Volante. He has the engine and speed potential it seems to create real problems with his movement, even if his finishing would be relatively poor for the role. 

I tend to find my ideal left backs come through as centre backs, because I want a massive physical unit who can just defend on the left. Then I find my best right backs are defensive midfielders who are usually a little shorter, but are very technically well rounded as well as being proficient defensively. 

[LukasZ_VCF]

7 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Players come through the youth systems with a position they can play but it doesn't necessarily mean that is their most effective position. This mirrors real life enormously, the roles at youth level are often far simpler in comparison to the senior game and so when you start to get youngsters in the first question you should always be asking is where do I think this player is best?

That RB as I said could be a brilliant RB if all you want is an athlete who is reactionary in defense. Personally I wouldn't be considering him for that position in my team because its the right hand side where I need to have a player who can dribble and cross, as well as be fast to create chances. 

Based on the stats of your regen RB he's likely above 6'0" and potentially closer to 6'4" which would make him ideal for me in a midfield role. I'd personally be using him as a BBM or a Segundo Volante. He has the engine and speed potential it seems to create real problems with his movement, even if his finishing would be relatively poor for the role. 

I tend to find my ideal left backs come through as centre backs, because I want a massive physical unit who can just defend on the left. Then I find my best right backs are defensive midfielders who are usually a little shorter, but are very technically well rounded as well as being proficient defensively. 

I wasn't thinking that much about moving him to another position because from what I have read at forum players learn them really slow or even can't learn them in FM19 and loose them really quickly.

And I needed a RB ;P

 

So if I will still adding wing attack and creating chances which train crossing and dribbling I will not be able to make him like 12 or above in both at least ?

[gavinski33]

I retrain mine all the time, usually wingers into fullbacks or centre halves into midfielders or vice versa. On this save I once got a 6'8 winger that I changed into a targetman. He was ***** like but he's some 3rd division clubs leading scorer ever now. Personally I don't think positions mean a very great deal anyways, certainly not at that age, and I've never found a problem moulding them. Just make sure that if you do want them retraining to pick them in the new position in your u18/u20/B teams because your other managers won't see it the same way at first

[santy001]

9 hours ago, LukasZ_VCF said:

So if I will still adding wing attack and creating chances which train crossing and dribbling I will not be able to make him like 12 or above in both at least ?

It's possible, I mean I haven't seen a screenshot of how he actually looks, only the forecast of how he could look in the future according to a third party program which is dubious at best.

Retraining, especially if done young, isn't much of an issue. As you might be able to guess, there are attributes that govern how well a player can turn their hand to another position with training. 

Speaking with a degree of insight if you're wanting to search for a player for a position you are better off by nailing down what ball park figures you want them to have (and scale down appropriately for youngsters) and leaving the position field blank. Particularly for roles such as the false 9, inside forwards etc. After all, these aren't really positions that youth football develops.

[enigmatic]

33 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Retraining, especially if done young, isn't much of an issue. As you might be able to guess, there are attributes that govern how well a player can turn their hand to another position with training. 

This depends on whether you're happy with "accomplished" players in a position (I generally am, but the AI usually isn't, which can mean not getting the caps they deserve and the squad wanting you to strengthen the position...).  Compared with real life, retraining positions is ludicrously limited.

It's a bit sad when you get messages for a sixteen year old defensively-sound wingback saying that he'll "never be more than accomplished" at fullback despite starting off at that level and having an entire career ahead of him. Pretty sure Evra was a striker at that age (and Bale and Gerrard actually were fullbacks)

[enigmatic]

2 hours ago, coolestrock said:

My question about attributes and CA is about buying the right players , i had a look using editors in one save to have a look at CA's etc.. so my question is , say a player with 120 CA , where the coach with the best JA says he is a good championship player , would he be able to play in a Premier League team going for the title if he has the perfect attributes for the role i'm using ? 

Yes, definitely. You can get very good ball winning midfielders, deep lying playmakers and fullbacks in particular with 120CA, as well as players who are quick enough for their technical limitations not to matter in some systems. And a consistent, mentally strong player can certainly perform better on average than someone with most of his attributes a point or two higher

In the extreme case, it's possible to build a team of 100CA players with the attributes to win the league with the editor.

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, coolestrock said:

hypothetically speaking what kind of player would people go for

Managing Man utd going for the title etc...

1st player : a 33 year old declining premier league player , has excellent attributes all over 16 for the role i want - CA 135 

2nd player : a 25 year world class player : attributes for the role are 13 or less - Ca 150 +

 

These are hypothetical players but who would you go for and why , if its all about attributes surely the 33 year old would be the best , if not why not ,????

Depends what you mean by "the attributes for the role you want" really, especially since an attribute being at 13 isn't exactly a crippling weakness. The CA150 player is bound to have plenty of attributes relevant to the role over 16, even if they're not the first you look at (I'd definitely take the Pace/Acceleration/Jumping 16, Finishing 13 striker over the reverse). But yes, if they had a big issue like a short centre back, I wouldn't sign them even if they theoretically had very high ability.

Then again, I can't imagine there's many cases where I'd sign a declining 33 year old CA135 player for Man Utd except for sentimental reasons. 

Luckily, there are more than two players in the world to sign

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, coolestrock said:

Not sure i put it over right , lets say the two players are wanted for a  DLP support , no pace , accel , jumping are needed according to the game, now whenever you search for players for this role using the attributes it says it needs , most times players you get first are over 30 , because their mentals and Technicals are still high enough for the role , so again 

The bold bit isn't true. They're not the priorities highlighted by the interface but a DLP needs to run a bit, especially if you're expecting them to help win the ball back. Every player except the GK runs. The game gives you loads of other information: there's a match engine so you can watch very slow players not doing very much and having their opponents easily intercept the ball ahead of them and run round them....

A DLP probably doesn't need to be any good at crossing or finishing because he won't find himself in positions to do it, you can tell him not to take long shots and not use him to defend corners, and if he's not the set piece taker he might as well be terrible at it. But he definitely needs to be able to run and stay fit for 90 mins.

 

Plus, if a player's a world class midfielder but only has 13 for passing, vision, decisions etc he's probably very, very good at lots of other things, so I'm not sure I'd shoehorn him into the DLP role anyway. And if I've got the money for a world class midfielder I don't need to buy a declining 33 year old to get someone with double digit stats in the right areas anyway....

[santy001]

@coolestrock there's always going to be a degree of variance in what people recommend and as @enigmatic mentions its rarely going to be a straight-horse choice between these two scenarios, but I'll humour it because it goes into how I play the game a bit.

On FM18 I signed Toni Kroos after he had already turned 33/34 and used him as my DLP until he retired a couple years later, and he was fantastic. A little later in the game, Neymar became my DLP as he was slowing down I retrained him to become a CM and once his pace was down to around 11 I made the switch and he became my DLP going forward. 

Personally, for me in the set-ups I tend to gravitate towards, a fairly immobile DLP is not an issue if you've got good mobility elsewhere in the team. If you've got a position in your team in which pace is non-essential, then an ageing player can still perform to a fantastic standard.

[herne79]

1 hour ago, coolestrock said:

I mean they were hypothetical players tbh , just to see what people look for in a player, all i wanted to know hypothetically was who would be the best for DLP out of the two,  either an older player with attributes or younger player with higher CA but lower attributes   , nothing else,  i was using it as an example to see what people would pick ,   i mean basically what i got is that CA is the most important thing in the game because a world class player with a higher CA is better than an older player with the right attributes

CA isn't close to being the most important thing in the game.

To begin with, CA takes no account at all of arguably the most important attributes - Determination and all the hidden ones (which aren't actually that hidden if you read the coach/scout reports).  You want Balotelli in your team?  No?  He's got a fairly high CA after all.  Why not then?  Because the frequency with which he'll be able to apply that CA (and visible attributes) is likely to be low due to his hidden attributes.  If a player is inconsistent, can't handle pressure or big matches, is injury prone and likely to get sent off if someone even looks in his direction he'll be less than useless - even if he does have great looking visible attributes.

Then you get into the spread of those visible attributes.  It's possible to have a high CA player but his attribute profile would make him less than favourable for the role you want him to perform.  Need a striker up front who's able to hold up the ball, fend off big burly defenders, bring team mates into play and get on the end of crosses?  Better hope your high CA striker isn't 5'6" with the strength of a wet tissue then.

CA is misleading if using it to assess how "good" someone is and is hidden for a reason.  But never ever ever overlook the hidden attributes .

[santy001]

@coolestrock the answer diverges down two main paths.

First of all, it depends. In the former situation, if you've got a midfielder and those are say his first touch and passing, then against a side who close you down instantly the good first touch would likely be a boon. Yet again, if its 20 passing and 6 first touch, against a team who stand off you - well that greater passing and greater freedom on the ball is going to allow a player to make dangerous passes.

Secondly, it's not measurable. There's no situation in the ME where you can categorically state a difference between even 1 and 20 for the majority of attributes. 

- - -

It's not to come across as patronising or dismissive but you're thinking about it completely in the wrong way. If you want to know who would be the best player out of any given 2 here's how you do it: Give them game time. See how they function in the role you give them and alongside the team mates you give them to perform alongside.