Why son heung min's rating is so low, comparing his level and performance.

[Tyler_s]

It has been five years with better and better performance, but seriously, comparing his contributions and performance, you guys giving him so low rate? Why?

Finishing is 16 pts, and first touch is only 12 pts, I don't thinks his first touch is so low as 12 pts, you know that.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Tyler_s

[Neil Brock]

1 hour ago, Tyler_s said:

It has been five years with better and better performance, but seriously, comparing his contributions and performance, you guys giving him so low rate? Why?

Finishing is 16 pts, and first touch is only 12 pts, are you really watch soccer?

Just because he is Asian?

Hi Tyler_s, allow me to explain a few things. First of all we have thousands of researchers around the world who take the time to watch, scout and research all the players you see in game. We do not attempt to discriminate against anyone at all for any reason whatsoever and strive to make our database as realistic as possible. 

All players are rated in relation to our Current Ability and Potential Ability (CA/PA) system as well as the attributes you see on screen in game. There is a 'weighting system' with attributes whereby players in certain positions have certain attributes weighted more, which means they cost more CA points. For instance, for a defender tackling, positioning and marking would all cost 'more' for a defender than it would say a striker. 

For players in outfield positions, physical attributes are especially important and have a high cost. None more so than pace and acceleration. 

In Son's case he is clearly a quick player (17/15 for Acc/Pace). For him to have the pace and acceleration which accurately represents him in game, it uses a lot of CA points. Which means his other attributes have less CA points available to be distributed. Whilst taken in isolation you may say that Son's finishing and first touch look low (albeit 16 finishing is a very high rating, and given he's scored 60 goals from 360 in the PL, doesn't seem far off in my opinion at least), these are in line with his overall represented ability in game. In FM20 Son is rated the second best player in the Spurs squad. Better than players like Lloris, Alli and Vertonghen. He is well inside the Top 100 players in the world, and one of the best 20 wide players in an extremely competitive group (Ronaldo, Messi, Salah etc). 

CA is also used in calculating how many positions a player can play in. For someone like Son who is so versatile, he is competent in at least five different positions (LM, RM, LW, RW, ST) which also has an affect on how his CA is spread in relation to his attributes.  

We hope this at least explains why he appears as he does in game and to confirm that he is not rated low - he is amongst the best players in the world both in game and within FM as well. 

Thanks. 

[Tyler_s]

21 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

Hi Tyler_s, allow me to explain a few things. First of all we have thousands of researchers around the world who take the time to watch, scout and research all the players you see in game. We do not attempt to discriminate against anyone at all for any reason whatsoever and strive to make our database as realistic as possible. 

All players are rated in relation to our Current Ability and Potential Ability (CA/PA) system as well as the attributes you see on screen in game. There is a 'weighting system' with attributes whereby players in certain positions have certain attributes weighted more, which means they cost more CA points. For instance, for a defender tackling, positioning and marking would all cost 'more' for a defender than it would say a striker. 

For players in outfield positions, physical attributes are especially important and have a high cost. None more so than pace and acceleration. 

In Son's case he is clearly a quick player (17/15 for Acc/Pace). For him to have the pace and acceleration which accurately represents him in game, it uses a lot of CA points. Which means his other attributes have less CA points available to be distributed. Whilst taken in isolation you may say that Son's finishing and first touch look low (albeit 16 finishing is a very high rating, and given he's scored 60 goals from 360 in the PL, doesn't seem far off in my opinion at least), these are in line with his overall represented ability in game. In FM20 Son is rated the second best player in the Spurs squad. Better than players like Lloris, Alli and Vertonghen. He is well inside the Top 100 players in the world, and one of the best 20 wide players in an extremely competitive group (Ronaldo, Messi, Salah etc). 

CA is also used in calculating how many positions a player can play in. For someone like Son who is so versatile, he is competent in at least five different positions (LM, RM, LW, RW, ST) which also has an affect on how his CA is spread in relation to his attributes.  

We hope this at least explains why he appears as he does in game and to confirm that he is not rated low - he is amongst the best players in the world both in game and within FM as well. 

Thanks. 

I got your points, but in each of the last four seasons,  Son consistantly created nearly 30 goals, including 20 finishing plus 10 assist, yes, consistantly for four years... 

but his FM rating cannot reflect anything about it, I mean, if you coach Hotspur, you barely let Son to achieve 20 plus 10, it's not my problem, you can ask any other FM players who play Hotspur, they probably say Son in FM is far away from good as in reality.

The CA/PA 160, we know it cannot reflect his ability.

I don't know why, but the truth is, FM just ignore the huge improvement on Son.

[gunner86]

So I decided to have a look at who else in my save has finishing of 16, that puts him on a par with:

Kevin de Bruyne

Sergio Aguero

Callum Wilson

Teemu Pukki

Neymar

Tammy Abraham

Gabriel Barbosa (a.k.a Gabigol)

Alex Lacazette

Riyad Mahrez

Andrea Belotti

Bernardo Silva

Chicarito

Timo Werner

Marco Reus

and, somewhat ironically, this guy @Neil Brock

For what it's worth, I'm managing Wolves, and Raul Jimenez has a "measly" 15 for finishing, yet he won the golden boot with 27 goals. If you're not getting him to perform, that to me points to a tactical issue.

It's also worth noting that finishing as an attribute in isolation does not guarentee goals, other attributes play a big part.

And while he's scored 20 goals a season, that is in all competitions, he's only scoring 11-14 goals a season in the EPL. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by gunner86

[GianniM]

28 minutes ago, gunner86 said:

If you're not getting him to perform, that to me points to a tactical issue.

I'll just repeat this

[Freakiie]

Booting up a random FM20 save he's roughly performing as well as he is in IRL while managed by the AI, earning himself a transfer to Barcelona. After not managing to claim a first squad spot there he moved on to Porto and absolutely shredded the Portuguese competition. Doesn't really look underrated to me. Quick, good off the ball, solid finishing, two-footed, team player with high work rate, his rating doesn't look low to me by any means.

[cris182]

I have seen in game Son get 15 plus assists and 20 plus goal regularly so he is well weighted if you use the correct system to get the most out of his strengths

[Mcfc1894]

I feel like if anything Dribbling is the Attribute which I would say let's him down on game statically in real life he's one of the best at dribbling in the league but not really shown in game attributes

[Marko1989]

15 minutes ago, Mcfc1894 said:

I feel like if anything Dribbling is the Attribute which I would say let's him down on game statically in real life he's one of the best at dribbling in the league but not really shown in game attributes

I've just checked, in previous season he was not even in top 10 in successfull dribbles. 

[-Jef-]

He is a solid straight line dribbler, not in-traffic liketop tier ones like Mahrez, Messi, Neymar. Not even on old-man CR7 level.

[Neil Brock]

Just something I thought worth noting from what we put in all our database and research forums:

As much of the data is subjective we’d ask that you respect everyone’s opinion and accept that the final decision is that of our club researchers and our heads of research.          

We also request you please adhere to the following three point plan when posting in the data topics:

·        State what you think is specifically wrong with a particular piece of data.              
·        State what you think the data should be.                            
·        State reasons/proof for your suggested corrections/improvements.   

Has been some interesting discussion in here so far, but please do remember the above when discussing player data. Thanks!  

[mp_87]

As has been said - He's a versatile forward player with high physical attributes, plus his 'weaker' foot must be about 17-18/20 I assume (if that's how under the hood/editor-wise it is still graded), that is going to eat into a huge chunk of his CA points. So this will impact on how he is rated/graded in some areas.

Having said that, looking at his attributes overall I think that is a pretty accurate appraisal of him as a player. OP mentions First Touch, but I think that's fair, he can be inconsistent and he's not brilliant if he receives the ball with his back to goal etc. And has been said already he is more of a straight line dribbler than your Messi's, Neymar's etc who have that super agile extra ability and/or flair to weave their way through a tight spot. 15 is fair enough and about his ceiling I'd say.

He's rated as a top PL player, I'm also inclined to believe that it might be tactical if you're struggling to get him firing.

[hoddle1404]

9 minutes ago, mp_87 said:

As has been said - He's a versatile forward player with high physical attributes, plus his 'weaker' foot must be about 17-18/20 I assume (if that's how under the hood/editor-wise it is still graded), that is going to eat into a huge chunk of his CA points. So this will impact on how he is rated/graded in some areas.

Having said that, looking at his attributes overall I think that is a pretty accurate appraisal of him as a player. OP mentions First Touch, but I think that's fair, he can be inconsistent and he's not brilliant if he receives the ball with his back to goal etc. And has been said already he is more of a straight line dribbler than your Messi's, Neymar's etc who have that super agile extra ability and/or flair to weave their way through a tight spot. 15 is fair enough and about his ceiling I'd say.

He's rated as a top PL player, I'm also inclined to believe that it might be tactical if you're struggling to get him firing.

I would agree with mp_87.. Son's skill in irl is basically he has good pace, dribbling, technique, off the ball and decent strike at  goal. So in FM, his attributes have been more or less correctly replicated based irl. I guess it's about using Son in the correct system and the tactics set up. For example, he had a pretty decent record when i played him as advanced forward rather than as a winger but of course it may not be always Son will always excel in all FM saves . Remember FM has evolved so much that apart from attributes, there are other factors that can affect a player's performance even if his attributes are world class.  

 

[Neil Brock]

Think Jose must have been browsing the forums - https://www.skysports.com/football/news/12040/12111894/heung-min-son-jose-mourinho-says-tottenham-forward-has-already-proven-himself-to-be-world-class

[anagain]

I think we have to remember that FM is just a simulation. As much as SI try very hard to recreate reality, it is never going to be spot on. 

I've seen You Tubers do simulations in which Messi and Ronaldo don't score anywhere near like they do in real life. 

The stats for Son will probably change with FM21 to reflect the start he has had to the PL, but I do also think that 16 finishing is good.

I don't know if player stats are reassessed with patches. I always thought stats were assigned prior to an edition's release. Son could be due an increase in CA for FM21. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

'Pace' is an attribute too much overrated. 

I don't really know if too much even in the ME or only the CA points weight.

I don't say it's not important, but:

1) there are few position that can really benefit from pace. (In the most, 'explosion' Is a speed-relative attributes more important)

2) and max speed can be reached very rarely during the season.

Agility/balance (and explosion' that there isn't now) are the most important physical attributes, imho. 

RonaldoR9 even in fat condition was still one of the fastest players (even compared to today ones), but become really not very agile (clumsy someday)

[Tyler_s]

Come on, why not 170 CA/PA, he is at this level, appreantly

[FrazT]

33 minutes ago, Tyler_s said:

Come on, why not 170 CA/PA, he is at this level, appreantly

Thanks for this- you have made your point and have had a number of responses from the developers.  I am sure that the Tottenham researcher will take all of your points into consideration but eventually the decision is in the hands of the research team and we all must respect that decision, even if we dont agree with it completely.

[karanhsingh]

I think he does need a bit of a bump but it's also because of the way that CA points are calculated in the game, the fact that pace & acceleration contribute so much to CA for an attacking player - he has high attributes in both. Two-footedness contributes hugely to CA as well, and he is quite two-footed. And finally as mentioned the versatility to play multiple positions.

Due to the above I feel like his other attributes look worse off than it ideally should for someone with his ability.

I have long since believed that two-footedness and positional versatility should not take up so many CA points because it effectively ends up penalizing the player. However, that would be more of a fundamental player development question for the SI team.

[santy001]

As a member of the research team, perhaps I can provide some information that may be of use.

First of all, keep in mind you're looking at research that is more than a year out of date now. The winter update is based upon a researchers assessments more or less in the run up to January. His current stats will partially be a reflection of the downturn in form Tottenham were in at that time and the departure of Pochettino. I have to be honest, remembering how he was playing then isn't something of particular importance to me. But the reality is Tottenham were suffering a downturn in form at that point, and well the players are going to bear the brunt of that if they're the ones who are regularly in the team when its not performing well.

Son is highly rated with both feet, by far one of the most deceiving elements of FM. An attribute rating is based on a players strongest foot. So a 1 footed player, with 20 finishing is undisputedly worse than a two footed player with a significantly lower finishing stat. I wouldn't put an exact number on it, but keep this in mind - the gap between 1 and 20 is far less than you imagine it to be. It is a scale for professional footballers, not a global scale. When a player is both footed, this means their attributes apply to either foot. So a 10, 11 or whatever on either foot opens up far more opportunities. It isn't something you can point out precisely in the flow of matches, yet it yields rewards in the game.

Son also scores decently in some critical areas, his decisions, anticipation, off the ball, determination, professionalism and ambition score highly. These serve to create a more effective, more robust player. 

It is entirely within ease for a researcher to create a 180+CA player, who looks brilliant when you view their profile but cannot score 5 goals a season. 

---

From the perspective of a player of the game, I had a save as Tottenham. Son between his goals & assists, would be close to 40 a season for the two seasons I had him. I then sold him to Liverpool for a huge sum, because he wanted to leave. He can play well in the game, putting in world class performances. 

[tobybilton1]

Been playing the game since I was about 10/11 - 15 years or so, and for the first time ever this season I bought the in-game editor. Partly because it helps to make MLS semi-playable and partly because after two, three, four years, I had got fed up of how criminally underrated Son is every edition. 

The posts in this thread from researchers have certainly helped to understand the makeup of Son in FM, but the fact that the original post has had quite a bit of agreement, and the debate we are now having, suggests to me that maybe SI do need to take another look at Son ahead of release date. 

 

[karanhsingh]

2 hours ago, santy001 said:

Son is highly rated with both feet, by far one of the most deceiving elements of FM. An attribute rating is based on a players strongest foot. So a 1 footed player, with 20 finishing is undisputedly worse than a two footed player with a significantly lower finishing stat. I wouldn't put an exact number on it, but keep this in mind - the gap between 1 and 20 is far less than you imagine it to be. It is a scale for professional footballers, not a global scale. When a player is both footed, this means their attributes apply to either foot. So a 10, 11 or whatever on either foot opens up far more opportunities. It isn't something you can point out precisely in the flow of matches, yet it yields rewards in the game.

This is why I have long thought that this aspect is poorly represented within the game. I can bet that a majority of FM players are unaware of how this works. People will believe that a player with 17 finishing should be better at finishing than one with 15 (ignoring other attributes for a second) but then the two-footedness comes into the picture. I remember running some quick experiments using an editor to just change a player's weak foot rating, keeping everything else including CA the same - IIRC by just changing the weaker foot from say 10 (reasonable) to 20 (either-footed), there was a drop of 2 points across almost all the attributes. Which to me seemed like a pretty massive swing! 

Who actually performs better in-game, a player with 14s across the board and two very strong feet, or a one-footed player with 18s across the board? They would both have the same CA - so technically they should perform about the same but do they - that is the question. 

[gunner86]

15 minutes ago, karanhsingh said:

I remember running some quick experiments using an editor to just change a player's weak foot rating, keeping everything else including CA the same - IIRC by just changing the weaker foot from say 10 (reasonable) to 20 (either-footed), there was a drop of 2 points across almost all the attributes. Which to me seemed like a pretty massive swing! 

 

Just on this, two footedness, if I remember correctly has a CA cost, so by raising the attribute of the players week foot to 20, this will have raised the recommended CA of the player. By not adjusting the players CA, the game has to balance the players CA by taking points off the other attributes which explains what has happened in this case.

[Freakiie]

20 minutes ago, karanhsingh said:

This is why I have long thought that this aspect is poorly represented within the game. I can bet that a majority of FM players are unaware of how this works. People will believe that a player with 17 finishing should be better at finishing than one with 15 (ignoring other attributes for a second) but then the two-footedness comes into the picture. I remember running some quick experiments using an editor to just change a player's weak foot rating, keeping everything else including CA the same - IIRC by just changing the weaker foot from say 10 (reasonable) to 20 (either-footed), there was a drop of 2 points across almost all the attributes. Which to me seemed like a pretty massive swing! 

Who actually performs better in-game, a player with 14s across the board and two very strong feet, or a one-footed player with 18s across the board? They would both have the same CA - so technically they should perform about the same but do they - that is the question. 

This does not need to be true at all. As Santy said, he could create a 180 CA player that doesn't perform at all (For example through incredibly low hidden stats that don't affect CA) and in general the spread of attributes and how you use a player will have a massive impact. As for the guy with better attributes but one footed vs two footed but worse attributes, in the end this would depend on how you use them. The two footed guy would be far less predictable and more versatile in what he'll do, whereas the one footed guy will be more one dimensional, but if you can set him up in a way where that does not limit him, he could easily outperform the two footed guy in that specific role. Take an IF like Robben, if you know he'll cut inside and be set up in a way that will allow him to use his strong foot, do you need him two be two-footed? Not really. Put him in the center though, where it depends on the situation which foot is optimal and suddenly the ability to use both feet is much more valuable.

[herne79]

Just a quick note on this two footedness talk - in game you cannot develop a player's weaker foot past "Reasonable", so artificially increasing it past this by using the in game editor and then seeing other attributes drop due to PA limitations is a bit of a red herring.

The only way for a player to have their weaker foot beyond "Reasonable" is if they are born with it (as a newgen) or a Researcher sets it (for real players).

[GSevensM75]

Hi All,

Son's stats have been increased this year.

As others have stated I've been broadly happy with the way he his career pans out under the AI.  They are often pan out close to real life (which is always my goal) and are usually slightly more positive than real life.

I think there are two key things that need to be considered when it comes to Son's performances.

1 - If you're managing him then you have to play a system that suits him to get the best out of him.  As recently demonstrated in real life, Son comes into his own when counter attacking.  I think his composure has certainly improved over the last couple of years (he used to fluff a lot of one on ones) and now on the counter he is deadly.  If your tactic is a high line and high possession game then you aren't playing to his strengths and you may not get the output you're looking for.

2 - Consistency is a key thing to consider.  Son can be a streaky player.  He'll have a few great games and then a few games where he is poor and offers little (I'd say that this has been a problem with a few Spurs players over the last few years, including Eriksen, Alli etc).  So sometimes in the game you may have trouble getting Son performing because of that consistency.

We'll see how he pans out in the latest release!

[karanhsingh]

16 hours ago, Freakiie said:

This does not need to be true at all. As Santy said, he could create a 180 CA player that doesn't perform at all (For example through incredibly low hidden stats that don't affect CA) and in general the spread of attributes and how you use a player will have a massive impact. As for the guy with better attributes but one footed vs two footed but worse attributes, in the end this would depend on how you use them. The two footed guy would be far less predictable and more versatile in what he'll do, whereas the one footed guy will be more one dimensional, but if you can set him up in a way where that does not limit him, he could easily outperform the two footed guy in that specific role. Take an IF like Robben, if you know he'll cut inside and be set up in a way that will allow him to use his strong foot, do you need him two be two-footed? Not really. Put him in the center though, where it depends on the situation which foot is optimal and suddenly the ability to use both feet is much more valuable.

 

16 hours ago, herne79 said:

Just a quick note on this two footedness talk - in game you cannot develop a player's weaker foot past "Reasonable", so artificially increasing it past this by using the in game editor and then seeing other attributes drop due to PA limitations is a bit of a red herring.

The only way for a player to have their weaker foot beyond "Reasonable" is if they are born with it (as a newgen) or a Researcher sets it (for real players).

I get all that - my question is whether the CA "points" taken up by being two-footed are too high, hence effectively penalizing the two-footed players in-game? I don't have anything to confirm this - it would be an interesting experiment to run. But it is my feeling. That if you took 2 players with everything else the same - positions and any attributes that do not contribute to the CA. Then say you maintain both at a CA of 160 and give one of them a 1 for weaker foot and the other 20 - who will actually turn out to be the better player. 

To that end, I believe that weaker foot rating should show up as an attribute just like the others, on a 1-20 scale. Currently it is the only player characteristic that affects CA as far as I know which is not reflected in the attribute chart. Therefore I may be looking at a player with 16s and 17s all over, but he is actually worse than Player B with 14s and 15s because the weak foot proficiency is not taken into account. It can get confusing to compare players, and I have been playing FM since the better part of two decades - can imagine it must be more confusing for less experienced players, and some of them may be completely missing out on this nuance of the game.

[Tyler_s]

22 hours ago, santy001 said:

As a member of the research team, perhaps I can provide some information that may be of use.

First of all, keep in mind you're looking at research that is more than a year out of date now. The winter update is based upon a researchers assessments more or less in the run up to January. His current stats will partially be a reflection of the downturn in form Tottenham were in at that time and the departure of Pochettino. I have to be honest, remembering how he was playing then isn't something of particular importance to me. But the reality is Tottenham were suffering a downturn in form at that point, and well the players are going to bear the brunt of that if they're the ones who are regularly in the team when its not performing well.

Son is highly rated with both feet, by far one of the most deceiving elements of FM. An attribute rating is based on a players strongest foot. So a 1 footed player, with 20 finishing is undisputedly worse than a two footed player with a significantly lower finishing stat. I wouldn't put an exact number on it, but keep this in mind - the gap between 1 and 20 is far less than you imagine it to be. It is a scale for professional footballers, not a global scale. When a player is both footed, this means their attributes apply to either foot. So a 10, 11 or whatever on either foot opens up far more opportunities. It isn't something you can point out precisely in the flow of matches, yet it yields rewards in the game.

Son also scores decently in some critical areas, his decisions, anticipation, off the ball, determination, professionalism and ambition score highly. These serve to create a more effective, more robust player. 

It is entirely within ease for a researcher to create a 180+CA player, who looks brilliant when you view their profile but cannot score 5 goals a season. 

---

From the perspective of a player of the game, I had a save as Tottenham. Son between his goals & assists, would be close to 40 a season for the two seasons I had him. I then sold him to Liverpool for a huge sum, because he wanted to leave. He can play well in the game, putting in world class performances. 

I got your point, but my point is his CA is underrated, it should be 170CA, not 160CA now, he is a player of world class.

[santy001]

13 minutes ago, Tyler_s said:

I got your point, but my point is his CA is underrated, it should be 170CA, not 160CA now, he is a player of world class.

World class is performance not a number. We don't have a CA that constitutes a world class player. We can genuinely create brilliant players at 130 or above in most positions. Our aim is to recreate the player in fm and not to hit a specific threshold. 

In theory if a researcher creates a player that performs perfectly like Messi, Ronaldo or anyone else then the CA doesn't matter. 

That's our aim and sometimes this means players have a CA that can be deceiving. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

35 minuti fa, santy001 ha scritto:

World class is performance not a number. We don't have a CA that constitutes a world class player. We can genuinely create brilliant players at 130 or above in most positions. Our aim is to recreate the player in fm and not to hit a specific threshold. 

In theory if a researcher creates a player that performs perfectly like Messi, Ronaldo or anyone else then the CA doesn't matter. 

That's our aim and sometimes this means players have a CA that can be deceiving. 

Again (i know, Sorry). 

But how would this be right? 

That's an huge problem. (In the ME or in the CA concept* and in the research).

I re-made the question (that is always strangely avoided): 

Tell me a player of circa 130CA in the starting database that in real life performs like Messi, Ronaldo, etc .

Cause the point Is that. 

If research use CA to gauge a player overall ability. If the AI uses CA to gauge a player overall ability. 

How can be right that a human player can using a Championship player, get a world class performance?

Well, ok, if you only aim is to win, no matter how. 

But i prefer lost than have such advantage. 

 

*And yes CA concept have several issue, like to need points for positions, but not for Important Matches, that with Decision should be the Key of the game)

Edited October 28, 2020 by FlorianAlbert9

[santy001]

It's not a question that is avoided @FlorianAlbert9 we don't typically rate at the very extremes of what is possible. There are many ways in which you can build a player and have them reflective of what that player is. 

The point is that its possible to create a world class player at a low CA if that's what you're setting out to do. Not because of a flaw in the game, but what the aim is. There is no player in the starting database who is aimed at being world class at 130 CA. Every player in the starting database is aimed at being a recreation of that player.

[FlorianAlbert9]

@santy001

But again, that's the problem. 

CA has a purpose in the research (we have Messi and CR7 in the 190, not others, and in 180 world class  not others) and for the AI (It will not use a 130 as regular in a top team) and for generate player (we will get a thousand of 130 Ca' player, but 1 or 2 190)

Then, human player if he can get world class performance using a 130 will have a great advantage. 

That's not fair

[herne79]

34 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

I re-made the question (that is always strangely avoided): 

Tell me a player of circa 130CA in the starting database that in real life performs like Messi, Ronaldo, etc .

Cause the point Is that. 

In my latest West Ham save I won the PL title first season with just one personnel change (I bought the transfer listed Thilo Kehrer (starting CA below 140).  The vast majority of the rest of the team has a CA between 130 and 140.  There are only 4 players above 140CA, with the highest being 150.

In my second season I won the CL having added just a couple of new faces (Reguilon - free transfer and the transfer listed Odriozola).  3rd season I sold Sebastian Haller to PSG for over £100m and immediately regretted it as I found it very hard to replace him for another player who could perform as well as he had.  I ended up having to change my system.

(For reference my system is a straight forward 3412 using just 1 TI, so no "OP" gegenpress).

In a different save I had Yarmolenko win the world best player award.

Me being able to do that isn't an ME issue, it's an AI issue.  If I had used the same tactics and knowhow as my elite AI competitors I wouldn't have won anything.  Their players are simply better than mine.  But I'm better than any AI manager - all of us are - so we can use all the advantages that we have over the AI in terms of squad management, training, match day strategy and tactics.

The hidden CA value is not - and never has been - a measure of how "good" a player is.

[themadsheep2001]

I think there's a real misconception on the forum from some about how CA and attributes are allocated and also how they actually work @santy001 I wonder if it's worth an explainer at some point?

[santy001]

I generally try to post in loose terms because as a researcher some stuff is covered by Non-disclosure agreements, and I'll be honest - I don't know fully what! Before sharing more points about something I'll usually run it past someone at SI to make sure I'm not going to get myself kicked off the research team and lose my free copy of FM each year.

I loaded up the pre-game editor though, and as awkward as it is (its nothing like the researcher tools) for me to use I played around with Sam Vokes a bit. Somewhat lazily and very much rushed but was able to put together a 131CA striker who I think would be a potentially destructive force in the hands of a player on FM (it would take a lot of hassle editing AI staff to force them to pick him and utilise him correctly in a team but even the AI would get strong performances too if set up right). Completely untested, and it wouldn't really prove anything either other than that I can actually make an OP player at around the 130CA mark.

A regen would never come through like this in the game. Maybe there could be an experiment in that though given the popularity for showing what can be achieved in a world class team with an undercooked player, by using a world class team with a researcher created undercooked (at least in terms of visual CA numbers) player. I'd probably give it to someone more tactically competent than myself though. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

40 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

In my latest West Ham save I won the PL title first season with just one personnel change (I bought the transfer listed Thilo Kehrer (starting CA below 140).  The vast majority of the rest of the team has a CA between 130 and 140.  There are only 4 players above 140CA, with the highest being 150.

In my second season I won the CL having added just a couple of new faces (Reguilon - free transfer and the transfer listed Odriozola).  3rd season I sold Sebastian Haller to PSG for over £100m and immediately regretted it as I found it very hard to replace him for another player who could perform as well as he had.  I ended up having to change my system.

(For reference my system is a straight forward 3412 using just 1 TI, so no "OP" gegenpress).

In a different save I had Yarmolenko win the world best player award.

Me being able to do that isn't an ME issue, it's an AI issue.  If I had used the same tactics and knowhow as my elite AI competitors I wouldn't have won anything.  Their players are simply better than mine.  But I'm better than any AI manager - all of us are - so we can use all the advantages that we have over the AI in terms of squad management, training, match day strategy and tactics.

The hidden CA value is not - and never has been - a measure of how "good" a player is.

No. 

Really are you saying that in real life Guardiola, Klopp, Sacchi etc... are poor manager and that a really good one should win CL and Premier with actual West Ham?

[FlorianAlbert9]

(of course i agree that the AI is poor, but that is another fact)

[santy001]

Herne hasn't said that, you've said that. And it would only be true that they should win it with West Ham if the rest of the managers knocking about the globe are AI.

Now as generic as manager interviews have gotten out there in the world of football, and as cookiecutter and copy/paste the answers are, I don't think they're actually AI. They just have to watch what they say publicly.

[herne79]

Going right back to the opening post for a moment - the poster specifically questions Son's First Touch being 12.  He then goes on to say his CA is too low.

As far as I'm aware a cohesive argument beyond "it seems low" is required in order to engage the Spurs researcher with a view to changing values.  Nobody's done that yet.

Also bear in mind FM21 is just around the corner so how about wait until the updated database is available and raise concerns then?

4 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Really are you saying that in real life Guardiola, Klopp, Sacchi etc... are poor manager and that a really good one should win CL and Premier with actual West Ham?

No that's not what I'm saying at all .  I'm saying in FM us human managers are better than any AI manager which gives us a huge advantage over them.

[santy001]

I'd hope the appearance of the Tottenham researcher, below, will allow the thread to perhaps transition from just Son to where-ever the natural flow takes it.

16 hours ago, GSevensM75 said:

Hi All,

Son's stats have been increased this year.

As others have stated I've been broadly happy with the way he his career pans out under the AI.  They are often pan out close to real life (which is always my goal) and are usually slightly more positive than real life.

I think there are two key things that need to be considered when it comes to Son's performances.

1 - If you're managing him then you have to play a system that suits him to get the best out of him.  As recently demonstrated in real life, Son comes into his own when counter attacking.  I think his composure has certainly improved over the last couple of years (he used to fluff a lot of one on ones) and now on the counter he is deadly.  If your tactic is a high line and high possession game then you aren't playing to his strengths and you may not get the output you're looking for.

2 - Consistency is a key thing to consider.  Son can be a streaky player.  He'll have a few great games and then a few games where he is poor and offers little (I'd say that this has been a problem with a few Spurs players over the last few years, including Eriksen, Alli etc).  So sometimes in the game you may have trouble getting Son performing because of that consistency.

We'll see how he pans out in the latest release!

 

You're not going to get a detailed breakdown of the changes, but when you get the your hands on the new information whenever that may be, should it be in the Beta if it happens, the full release, the demo or in 3 months time I'd suggest: actually fire the game up. Then, play the game and see if that version of Son plays like Son, if he does then his attributes don't really matter. If he doesn't, then provide some feedback in the data forums to say what feels wrong.

If he's not playing like Son in the game there may be something wrong... or it may just be your tactics.

[Haiku]

Two footed and versatile players eat up a lot of CA. It appears some of Son attributes aren't great on first glance, but his two footedness, versatility and consistency make up for that. In the end of the day upon using him in the right strategy, he's been great performer, and that's what really matters.

[FlorianAlbert9]

Well, but for how many damange a poor manager AI can do, he cannot be so decisive. 

Cause you are forgetting that the Manager is human, but even the human manager's players have the same AI of others teams. And all we know that in real life a great manager could be a difference when the player difference are not so huge. Guardiola will not win the CL with West Ham as m le myself could not make City lost against an hungarian team

Are we not talking about FiFA/pes, where, yeah, the AI vs Human Is a decisive factor couse the most important factor (players) are controlled by human. 

 

 

[Cal585]

Would I be correct in understanding the argument to be that AI managers and their tactics aren't sophisticated enough to get the best out of players, for example, by playing Son in a way that highlights his strengths? And that therefore, in general, a higher CA player will shine more than a lower one because the coach report gives them a higher ranking and therefore importance to the team?

I think that's more about the AI limitations and diversity rather than the drawbacks of the CA system itself and I don't think the AI relies on it as much as we might think. I think there's a tendency to look at players like in FIFA where their individual attributes create their ability which is the important value, whereas in FM it's the other way round. The CA helps create their attributes which are the important bit and determine what a player can do. A big strong CB with a couple of good attributes in key areas but overall a low CA WILL play better for a team that doesn't worry about playing out of the back than a higher CA CB who is more skilful on the ball but not as strong defensively because they are distributed to more things.

Son may not be a completely all-round winger but what he does, he does well. If the AI puts him in a Tiki Taka system he will probably be poor. But if they use him in a counter system, he will be better than a slower, more technical player who may have higher CA. The CA is only a basic framework that the attributes are built on.

[FlorianAlbert9]

If you use a counter Attack system in real life, Usain Bolt would, in every case, worst than the slower striker of premier level. 

Use a right player in the right tactics make the difference between similar level players. 

But Pelé would be better also as a defensive midf than a sunday League player in his best position.

[tobybilton1]

4 hours ago, Haiku said:

Two footed and versatile players eat up a lot of CA. It appears some of Son attributes aren't great on first glance, but his two footedness, versatility and consistency make up for that. In the end of the day upon using him in the right strategy, he's been great performer, and that's what really matters.

Sorry but the Tottenham researcher literally said he's inconsistent:

20 hours ago, GSevensM75 said:

2 - Consistency is a key thing to consider.  Son can be a streaky player.  He'll have a few great games and then a few games where he is poor and offers little (I'd say that this has been a problem with a few Spurs players over the last few years, including Eriksen, Alli etc).  So sometimes in the game you may have trouble getting Son performing because of that consistency.

 

Glad that Son has had an upgrade in FM21, can't wait to do my standard Spurs BETA save and see the results. 

[martplfc1]

Why do pace and acceleration cost so many ability points? You're either fast or not, does that really have anything to do with football ability?

Usain Bolt should (in his day) have had 20 for both. He should also have fairly good strength, agility, natiral fitness, stamina and (probably) jumping. Assuming all of those were 14+, what would his minimum CA be?

Just seems to me that physical characteristics shouldn't count a great deal towards an 'ability' assessment.

[FrazT]

Interestingly, none of the attributes that you mentioned are in any way football oriented.  If the football based attributes are low, the player will not perform on the pitch, so the physical attributes need to be lined to the technical ones for a well rounded player

[s1111]

56 minutes ago, martplfc1 said:

Why do pace and acceleration cost so many ability points? You're either fast or not, does that really have anything to do with football ability?

Usain Bolt should (in his day) have had 20 for both. He should also have fairly good strength, agility, natiral fitness, stamina and (probably) jumping. Assuming all of those were 14+, what would his minimum CA be?

Just seems to me that physical characteristics shouldn't count a great deal towards an 'ability' assessment.

I just made a Usain Bolt in the editor and his CA with all physical attributes at 20 and all others at 1 would be 40, which is an decent player in the ninth or tenth tier in England

[martplfc1]

Cool, so nothing out of ordinary then. I thought from the initial explanation that his ability would be 100+ with great physical attributes. I'm glad it's more reflective of true ability.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

On 28/10/2020 at 09:28, herne79 said:

But I'm better than any AI manager - all of us are - so we can use all the advantages that we have over the AI in terms of squad management, training, match day strategy and tactics.

I hope that never gets taken away.

At the moment I'm playing a Swansea save file, and most of my players are rated for the "Championship", even though I think they have decentish attributes. I picked up a striker from Burkina Faso, he's banged in 20 goals in the PL, is 2nd top scorer, I dunno what his CA/PA would be he's got;

 

16 finishing, technique, 15 composure, 14 off the ball, 15 heading, 13 decisions, 16 Acc/Pace and is one footed. He pulls up a 9+ average in training, every report he's in my top three in training. 

All my staff rate him as a Championship-level for whatever reason. Internationally he can't get off the subs bench because the Int Manager is persisting with an elderly and rubbish strike partnership (lol) I have no doubt if I resigned on the spot, the AI manager would try and sell him or use him purely as a backup. 

Yet, although I recognise the AI should be better at identifying talent like this guy, I kinda like that they are able to make ridiculous mistakes like this. In my save, Liverpool have built a disgusting team worthy of old time peak-Barcelona levels of domination. Yet, Leicester and other teams have been so badly mismanaged they're battling relegation. I love that this disparity happens. 

On that note, I don't think we all are better than AI managers, otherwise we wouldn't have a forum full of people bashing their heads against the wall in despair at tactical defeats. But that's the fun of the game in a way.