"Older" players and physcal decline.

[Tryllefot]

In FM players usually see a decline in their physical abilities when they hit their early 30'ties, but is that "up to date"? Juve and Bayern have players in their mid thirties playing full ninety minutes and holding up well even at 35+, like Ribery. Maybe I'm wrong, but I fell the quality of the clubs sports sience department should be important for how long a player keeps physical attributes after he hits 30, like it is in real life. I think development in sports science has made it possible for athletes too keep it going longer, and maybe that should be more reflected in FM? I don't mean that there should be no decline, but now I think it's a bit dramatic. Just an opinion.

[sporadicsmiles]

For every Ribery you point out, I can probably find a Rooney.

[Able.Ryder]

You can also have a look at this thread: 

 

[gavinski33]

4 hours ago, Able.Ryder said:

You can also have a look at this thread: 

 

 

That was a terrific thread until Bill and Ben started banging their heads off walls.

My only take on it really is from my current save, I wound up in Hong Kong after 3 or 4 seasons and thought it'd be pretty mint if I could sign a Ronaldo or a Rooney for my HK Pegasus team. Ronaldo was an u18 coach at Aston Villa and Rooney was manager of Harrogate Town. It'd be cool and surely more likely if, say, their agents approached clubs in Hong Kong, Japan, Qatar, etc and offered these aging superstars with massive reputations out, especially behind 'your' back, so to speak. News item rocks up from the chairman saying "I've signed a 39 year old Messi for you, all your young players are made up but the old ones are narky about him getting x amount a week. Oh, and your wage budget is tanked and now I want you to win the league".

[enigmatic]

9 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

For every Ribery you point out, I can probably find a Rooney.

The problem is in FM you don't see many Ribery's, never mind Totti's or Giggs' (or even more common IRL, players that were never particularly great or particularly quick that are still moving about the pitch at the same pace 10 level in their late 30s as their early 20s). Nothing wrong with some players in the database crashing early, but it feels like virtually no 30 year olds have much chance of sticking around for the next six seasons...

In SI's defence, I've just managed to complete an entire season with a 33 year old defender (starting pace 11, acceleration 9) losing only 0.2 points of pace. Sure, he played most games, has decent natural fitness and has a professional personality too, but that's a lot less decline than I'm used to seeing, especially for a team with unremarkable facilities in the German third tier.

 

[RBKalle]

10 ore fa, sporadicsmiles ha scritto:

For every Ribery you point out, I can probably find a Rooney.

I disagree...

The Ribery/Rooney ratio is probably 10-1... As said in the other thread, the physical decline for most players is staggering and it sets in too early. Only those who start falling off the tallest cliff can stand a chance to reach age 34 or 35 and still be somewhat useful.

But an average guy, say, with physical attributes around 12-13 at his peak is going to hit 5 or 6 Acc/Pac/Sta around age 33, probably a taaaaaad too early to produce the amount of Rooneys you suggest we're getting.

[fish18ish]

Not sure about this. Charlie Mulgrew was still going strong at 34 for me at Blackburn before I left. It depends on their natural fitness, personality etc. Like others have said, for every golden oldy there is one who has gone to sh*t. I can list former Norwich players from the Lambert era who completely disappeared after 30. The game is not far wrong imo. 

[Bothan Spy]

I personally think the alarming decline of players when they hit the dreaded 30 in the game, is the main reason why a majority of fm players are obsessed with signing wonderkids. People are basically flogging anyone over 27 as they know they will rapidly deteriorate and lose value. It's been a problem for a while now.

[YasoKuul]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Bothan Spy:

I personally think the alarming decline of players when they hit the dreaded 30 in the game, is the main reason why a majority of fm players are obsessed with signing wonderkids. People are basically flogging anyone over 27 as they know they will rapidly deteriorate and lose value. It's been a problem for a while now.

The main problem is that physical attributes are more important than mental attributes and experience.

[looknohands]

I think the main issue comes down to how the game uses Natural Fitness and Stamina.  To me, Natural Fitness should be the main indicator of how well a player can manage playing 90 minutes in addition to how they're able to recover from fatigue and the like; this way a player that isn't "fit" is going to struggle to see out matches or cope with heavy match congestion regardless of age.  They're plenty of 35+ players that are fully capable of playing a full 90 minutes once a week and occasionally twice.

The key here, then, would be the stamina rating--this should determine how long a player can play up to his current potential during an actual game.  A player with a 20 stamina rating can reasonably be expected to play at his full ability for an entire match, whereas players with a lower rating (which would drop off much as it currently does in the game) would maybe only be able to give 45-60 minutes of "peak" performance during a game.

This would enable a more realistic depiction of how quality players can still be a viable option late into the careers, with the player having to make the judgement call of, "Do I risk 30 minutes of brilliance from this player over a full 90 minutes, or do I use him as a super sub to maximize his output?"  This would also better reflect players such as Rooney who, by dropping down a lesser league (Premier League to MLS) are able to come in and be a major force in the league.  So if you have a 34 year-old player that's no longer able to consistently play up to the standards of an elite league, he can still find success in a smaller league even though he can't play at his best over the course of an entire game.

Put another way:

Player X is 36.  His current CA is 150 with a stamina rating of 7.  He might have some value as a sub in an elite league, but he wants to play regularly (we'll say his Natural Fitness is still around 13, so he should be able to see out most matches.)  By moving to a lower league (let's say the average player in the league has a CA of 120) the difference in his pure talent (the significantly higher CA) may be enough to offset the fact that he'll struggle to perform at his peak over the course of the entire match.  Even if he's only playing at 80% for large stretches of the match--let's call it "picking his spots"--that 80% would roughly put him on even terms with the players around him, while that extra 20% in reserve gives him the chance to have a major influence on the game.  For about a decade, this is what you saw in MLS with signings like Beckham, Blanco and Ibrahimovich--they could be expected to play a full 90 minutes, even if they weren't able to maintain their high standards over the course of the match.  Instead, you see'd the flashes of brilliance at times throughout the match that set them apart from the typical MLS player.  I believe my idea would be a more accurate reflection of reality and would give older players a better chance of remaining productive towards the end of their careers while simultaneously adding depth to managing in lower leagues by allowing you to gamble on older talent that could provide a huge boost to your club at the expense of playing a younger, less talented (but possibly more consistent) player.  

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, looknohands said:

I think the main issue comes down to how the game uses Natural Fitness and Stamina.  To me, Natural Fitness should be the main indicator of how well a player can manage playing 90 minutes in addition to how they're able to recover from fatigue and the like; this way a player that isn't "fit" is going to struggle to see out matches or cope with heavy match congestion regardless of age.  They're plenty of 35+ players that are fully capable of playing a full 90 minutes once a week and occasionally twice.

The key here, then, would be the stamina rating--this should determine how long a player can play up to his current potential during an actual game.  A player with a 20 stamina rating can reasonably be expected to play at his full ability for an entire match, whereas players with a lower rating (which would drop off much as it currently does in the game) would maybe only be able to give 45-60 minutes of "peak" performance during a game.

This would enable a more realistic depiction of how quality players can still be a viable option late into the careers, with the player having to make the judgement call of, "Do I risk 30 minutes of brilliance from this player over a full 90 minutes, or do I use him as a super sub to maximize his output?"  This would also better reflect players such as Rooney who, by dropping down a lesser league (Premier League to MLS) are able to come in and be a major force in the league.  So if you have a 34 year-old player that's no longer able to consistently play up to the standards of an elite league, he can still find success in a smaller league even though he can't play at his best over the course of an entire game.

Put another way:

Player X is 36.  His current CA is 150 with a stamina rating of 7.  He might have some value as a sub in an elite league, but he wants to play regularly (we'll say his Natural Fitness is still around 13, so he should be able to see out most matches.)  By moving to a lower league (let's say the average player in the league has a CA of 120) the difference in his pure talent (the significantly higher CA) may be enough to offset the fact that he'll struggle to perform at his peak over the course of the entire match.  Even if he's only playing at 80% for large stretches of the match--let's call it "picking his spots"--that 80% would roughly put him on even terms with the players around him, while that extra 20% in reserve gives him the chance to have a major influence on the game.  For about a decade, this is what you saw in MLS with signings like Beckham, Blanco and Ibrahimovich--they could be expected to play a full 90 minutes, even if they weren't able to maintain their high standards over the course of the match.  Instead, you see'd the flashes of brilliance at times throughout the match that set them apart from the typical MLS player.  I believe my idea would be a more accurate reflection of reality and would give older players a better chance of remaining productive towards the end of their careers while simultaneously adding depth to managing in lower leagues by allowing you to gamble on older talent that could provide a huge boost to your club at the expense of playing a younger, less talented (but possibly more consistent) player.  

This is pretty much what happens in FM already. A player with a stamina of 7 loses condition slower in a lesser league (and can play OK there at 65% condition) and will get his condition back OK due to decent natural fitness

(The bigger issue is pace, because a skilful winger with 6 pace and acceleration usually is less useful in FM than a technically very limited one with 13 pace and acceleration)