Congratulations. You just earned 1.0 points for this submission. Your new points total is 2.0. To see the leaderboard, as well as what this points thing is, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/wiki/leaderboard).
Physicals give more chances, it explains why some player irl are worse than fm.
Biggest cases for me even in FM24
Daniel James, if asked to be a winger support on the right racked up 23 Assists.
Eric Bailly man marked Haaland out of every game
It's not that they don't matter, they contribute, it's just that they are completely overmatched by physicals in every outfield position.
Forsaken hit's the nail right on the head by saing "Physicals give more chances." This is my thinking with the entire thing too. It all comes down to math. One you stop looking at the match engine as "football" and as the math sim it is then it starts making more sense and all of a sudden Acceleration, Pace, Agility and Stamina become the game's key stats for all outfield positions. More chances = more success. All outfield positions have high CA weighting multipliers for these stats in the stat weightings, that's no accident, the dev's know they are really powerful.
Physical attributes, especially acceleration and pace, will likely allow you to either get more attempts or be able to even get to make an attempt in the first place. In a numerical simulation using RNG the math is more likely to favour volume of oppertunities vs a single attempt.
Two attempts at 40% chance of success has a higher success rate, of 64%, than making one attempt at 60%. Get a third attempt at the same 40% odds and you jump to 78.4%. The slower, "better", player who can only make one tackle is actually less mathematically effective than the faster, "worse", player who can recover and make a second attempt.
Other attributes have effect in terms of their contribution to in game calculations. So a stat that is involved in 3 actions has less effect than one that's in 8. This is likely why a couple of the mentals, anticipation and concentration, seem to come up in the 'meme attributes' discussion. However none of those stats matter if you can't get to the ball or player in the first place and usually matters less than recovering from a failure to take another attempt.
I work as a sports scientist and this is how I explain the importance of fitness and speed to players and coaches. It gives them more opportunities on the ball, “at bats” if you will. Could be overpowered in the game but the concept is true IRL. A quirk you see with live GPS tracking in game is a lot of fast players actually struggle to use their speed in game contexts. For example a player we had in the past with 37kph top speed (properly fast) would usually barely scrape 31kph if that making a run through the defensive line - in his case I think he was scared of the physicality of the defenders given his injury history but during training he would make that run at 33-35kph easily.
Every player passes the ball. Adding 5 passing to the entire team has essentially zero variance to baseline team. This means they have +5 passing advantage on every player against the entire league and they don’t perform better than the control team. That is fucking wild to me.
There are only 4 attributes that materially affect GD in arena testing. And another 4 that are barely above the margin of error.
The only explanation is a lot of technical/mental are too dependent (force multipliers) for each other. Ie you need high technique/vision/passing to make any kind of difference. So increasing one without the other doesn’t do anything.
To add to this, I haven't seen much variation in tactic and roles either. Most of the tests I've seen have been done with a 4231, which is arguably the most popular formation. I'd like to see much more variation in the tests performed, but of course that's a massive time sink.
FM arena has tested it with multiple tactics in multiple versions of the game.
Acceleration pace are always the most impactful to match engine. Then there is usually other physicals in the top usually agility and or balance and jumping. Sometimes dribbling makes an appearance.
There was even tested blank instruction tactics. And the meta players still destroyed everyone.
The meta tactics are actually overrated it is just the FM presets are awful and tactics people on reddit make are usually awful because they think it's real life or want to be different.
The other test thread on FM arena showed if you average 3 points higher in acc and pace then the league you will win the league regardless of what are attributes are.
There is absolutely a confirmed meta. No one has to play that way. But if you do then you dominate.
And at a certain point everyone plays the meta because all world class players or real players or later new gens have absolute top physicals that's why they are world class
I don't have the links as it's posted in FM arena forum threads. Not posted as a results page.
I read it regularly so I knew about them. But they don't link the other tests anywhere so you gotta spend some time reading a bunch of threads
People really have a hard time understanding this. It’s also quite clear when you watch lower professional levels compared to elite football. All those guys are strong and fast but you can tell they don’t make the right decisions or understand space the way elite footballers do.
Nice try but no. It's amazing the mental gymnastics people do just to somehow try to portray it as "realistic". That the mental and technical attributes do anything at all in certain positions does not mean all is fine. The goal should not be to just disprove the "non meta attributes are useless" theory. They should do far more than just "do something". How can people ignore that making the entire team top class in passing, vision, technique, decisions, composure does not make them really perform any better is beyond me. To answer your question "is this unrealistic?", it most defnitely is.
These people are just trying so, so hard. No matter which critiques you might have for methodology in the experiments, the overarching message still stands. A lot of the attributes that FM says are important simply do not do anything, or do very little. I thought it was super clear. People who haven’t even run their own experiments show up and say they just scout based on pace and win. That should not be possible. I don’t see how people think that’s realistic.
Just my opinion:
FM on Reddit has been going about this in a fundamentally flawed way. I.e. the experiments aren’t good. We need to be experimenting to gather information on HOW the engine works rather than just slapping attributes on people and drawing conclusions. It’s just really bad experimenting.
For example, some attributes could be weighted relatively and others might be rated absolutely. Just something as simple as that line of thinking could make most of these experiment worth fuck all.
For example, I’m pretty positive Anticipation, Flair, decisions, vision are all directly connected in a major way. To the point that you literally need all of them at a certain level or they could actually become a net negative to a player in some situations.
For example, and THIS IS JUST CONJECTURE: if I was a game designer playing with these attributes it’d go like this:
Vision dictates how many of the other players on the pitch a player is aware of.
Anticipation is your players ability to predict what the players HE IS AWARE OF are going to do next.
Flair is the extravagance of a play your player is willing to try, based on what he sees, and assumes is going to happen next
You cycle thru all of those things, and are left with a number of decisions. Now the Decisions attribute dictates which of the possible choices your player ultimately goes with, within a window of reasonable decisions.
So trying to think like a programmer here, they are all filters your possible actions are pressed thru until your decisions attribute selects from the leftover choices, after running thru the filter of several attributes.
if you are lacking sufficiently in one of those areas, having an unbalanced or “too high score” in another area could actually be a BAD THING if this is the case.
It makes sense to me. If a player has high vision he can see the whole field, but if he lacks anticipation he’s just watching plays break open and sending it in offsides.
A player with high anticipation and no vision just has extreme tunnel vision. He knows exactly what the guy he’s staring directly at will do, but he doesn’t know the other players even exist. He’s basing all his actions off what that guy he’s staring at is doing.
A player with high flair and shit anticipation will be trying to lead guys open with curling passes right into defenders feet.
Having a high score in everything except shitty decisions is basically the purest form of a crap shoot possible. He sees what’s happening, can predict the next move, and has flash to pull it off, but all of those skills give him 20 different options to “decide” on and he can’t make up his mind.
So I’d say you need to view attributes as sets, firstly, and figure how they scale, secondly, or we are just jerking ourselves off.
Decisions is absolutely a purely useless attribute if you have no decisions to choose from because youre blind and basic.
Conversely, having mountains of flair and vision but no anticipation or decisions might actually HURT you a lot more than help you.
So yeah, 20 vision on your team full of 6th tier players isnt going to help. They see the whole field but have no idea what’s going on or how to take advantage.
I think this is more true for mental attributes. Not even touching Teamwork, Concentration, composure but you best bet they all largely interconnected to the point that having one at 20 while the others are 8 is the equivalent of replacing only your front right tire with a racing slick and wondering why your cars performance hasn’t dramatically increased.
On physical attributes: Of course they’re more valuable. They’re the catalyst that physically puts you in position to take action regardless of literally everything else. If the opposition is just on an alien level of athleticism compared to you, you are going to lose in sports, even if you’ve spent your entire life practicing and they only have comparatively basic skills.
Being a .000000001% athlete is more valuable than being a very good sportsman. Anyone can be a very good sportsman with enough practice. Elite athletes are born. Crafted in the womb by the hands of Ares himself, to dominate competition and dash lesser men against the stones of defeat.
The athleticism is what separate the world class from everyone else. They can all pass and dribble from non league to the prem. The best have an advantage in the one place you can’t teach. They’re just faster and stronger. And maybe a little better at reading the game.
But there’s is a hard threshold for athleticism and drastically increasing returns on a “speed difference” in sports.
I feel like people who have played a lot of sports understand this inherently. I was a good to very good American football player from a skill perspective. No way in any world could I have played division one college ball. I’m too small, weak and slow. No matter how much I workout and train I’ll always be too small, weak, and slow to play football at that level. Whereas an athletic guy who has never played sports in his life, but can run a 4.4 second 40 and rep 300 pounds on the bench could be given a chance, learn late and be a vastly more effective football player than I ever would despite me having 10x the “skill”.
Regarding the test, a player with 20 in every physical doesn’t exist.
I mean that human being isn’t real in the actual world. You’re literally testing mortals against alien superhuman athletes crafted in a lab. Skills don’t matter at that point.
Long ass post. I had time and been wanting to share my thoughts 🤙🏻
There was an experiment where someone just boosted all mentals and technicals of Palace team to 16 - and it had no significant effect on results. Wouldnt that disprove your argument? So we have realistic players who are now team of what should be insanely press resistant machines but they kinda sorta do fuck all.
At the risk of repeating myself, there's a reasonable test that could be done to dispel that: [https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/comments/1aum8zj/comment/kr5go7n/](https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/comments/1aum8zj/comment/kr5go7n/)
**Test A:**
**1.** Get best tactics from FM-Arena, check roles on tactics, check FM importance of the attributes for those specific roles. Adopt a 1 (unimportant) - 2 (slightly important) - 4 (crucial) attribute increase based on role importance until you hit an arbitrary CA cap (120 CA or 140 CA for example). Repeat for every player until you have a team with the CA cap tailored to the roles according to what FM is telling you.
Theoretically, all things being the same (no injuries, no morale changes, etc. ) this should consistently give you the best results possible.
**2.** Use a random starting game template tactic. Adopt the same 1-2-4 attribute increase, but this time using the FM-Arena attribute importance, basically creating very fast, strong, aerially powerful players at CA cap.
Theoretically, because we know how important these attributes are, they should/can give the team an advantage, but over the long term, it should not produce better results than a perfect mixture of the combination of attributes that FM specifies are the best for a player playing in a certain position.
**Test B:**
Make Test A's teams play against each other.
Theoretically, in a 1 on 1, the team with the optimized stat combination according to FM, using a tactic that has been tested to be one of the best, should consistently beat a team with good but not optimized stats and with an unoptimized tactic.
Literally the tests fm arena does they have an entire test thread on the so called player position highlighted attributes and it's was discovered the game recommended attributes aren't as good as the meta
I'm under the impression that the tests they've done consisted on increasing one attribute by 5 or decreasing other attribute to verify the impact of that one attribute, which is not what I suggested.
That is what the tables are but they do lots of tests that are in their forum and not posted with tables. Usually one if the 2 admins post random tests when people request them
I'm under the impression that the tests they've done consisted on increasing one attribute by 5 or decreasing other attribute to verify the impact of that one attribute, which is not what I suggested.
EDIT: The closest I can find is this [](https://fm-arena.com/thread/5351-should-you-follow-the-highlighted-attributes-of-the-roles/) which likewise is not what I'm suggesting.
I'm not suggesting reshuffling one or a few players weights, but making a tailored team for the highlighted attributes of the roles vs a tailored team for the meta attributes and see how both teams compare as a whole, rather than individual positions.
You are referencing the tests where they post the results in a table and it has a main link.
If you actually read the forum regularly other tests by the admin come up and are never posted with direct link or tables.
The one thread is all about FM highlighted attributes vs the meta. And how the highlighted attributes are bogus compared to the meta.
The meta team severely outperformed the highlight attribute team.
Pretty sure it was over a year old original thread. If I find it I'll link you.
FM arena in the forum does a lot more tests that never get direct links or result pages
There was a test where they took a mezzala (a position which doesn't have pace highlighted at all, but has off the ball and vision marked as the most important attribute) and changed some of the attributes.
They first took away some of the pace away from the Mezzala, and put an equal amount of CA into the "important attributes" (attributes highlighted by the game) instead. It made them play much worse, despite the fact that the game tells you the other attributes are way more important for mezzala specifically.
Then they repeated the test again, removing all points from vision and redistributing the CA into physicals, and this made the mezzala perform much better, despite the fact that the game tells you physical attributes are not as important.
This shows that the game is wrong about which attributes are important for each position, and you would have to test it manually. And because we have so many attributes and even more roles, it's just not a test that's feasible to do.
I think people use a lot of mental gymnastics to defend the game. Maybe for some attributes you can say they might or might not be position specific. However things like passing and technique? It’s absolutely strange that changing something like passing has zero effect on team outcomes as shown in the FM Arena tests. I’m not really sure what it would take for some of you guys to be convinced.
It is just a non-issue. Football IS ruled by players who are physically gifted. There are exceedingly few players who aren't any of the following: Fast, strong, tall, agile or at the very don't have elite dribbling. Any player who does lack all of these relies on having other players around him for him to pass to. A team full of players without any elite athletes is fucked, even in real life.
At the end of the day only one player on the pitch has the ball at their feet at any one time. Every other player on the pitch is running. It is no surprise that the team with the better athletes is going to win the majority of the time. Physicals are NEVER useless at any point during a football match. Ever. Long shots, passing, long throws, free kicks, corners, penalties, finishing, technique, first touch etc etc are useless for the majority of any individual football match. If you do not have the ball the you cannot make use of them.
Some people are so obsessed with trying to justify SI's shit algorithm, it's insane.
I always wonder how they'd argue with Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta being the best midfield 3 in the history of the sport despite none of them being quick or strong
Or you're simply missing my point. Those players were undeniably world-class, and they made the other players on their team better. You would not want an entire team of them, though. They needed players like Messi, Neymar, and Suarez to give the ball to. It was a symbiotic relationship.
Their lack of physicality is overstated, though. Iniesta was incredibly agile and decently quick. Xavi had incredible balance and was also agile. Busquets was taller than the majority of players and was pretty strong. None of them were physically incapable. They had their physical strengths and the technical ability on top of that.
So you're telling me a theoretical squad of
Kimmich - Chiellini - Carragher - Lahm
Kroos - Busquets - Xavi
David Silva - Bergkamp - Iniesta
would struggle because none of them are fast or particularly strong outside of the 2 CBs? That team would run rings around 99% of current teams in Europe.
Also, before you argue that several of those players are agile, your criteria makes it almost impossible to find anyone that doesn't fit into any of "Fast, strong, tall, agile or at the very don't have elite dribbling".
If you aren't tall, you're short and short players have a low center of gravity so short athletes are almost always agile and nimble, especially if they aren't strong
>A team full of players that lack technical and mental ability would be even more fucked in real life. That isn't the case in FM. My IRL in the Conference South and you see so many
Sorry but I hard disagree. Just look at what happens when professional womens teams play against even semi-professional male players. Technically they are far better players but they are absolutely outclassed physically and it leads to them being destroyed. Or look at how there are older retired players who are technical beasts like Paul Scholes who have played at a non-league level for fun and cannot dominate games. Or how literal celebrities can compete against retired footballers in events like socceraid without being completely outclassed. Being literally unable to kick a ball would be different but even a 1 on FM is a semi-professional standard and not a complete inability to play football.
>
Otherwise Micah Richards would have been a better defender than John Terry, or Chiellini, which clearly wasn't the case.
Neither Chiellini nor John Terry are bad athletes, at all. John Terry was a man mountain who was super physical. Honestly it was his physical gifts that made him the defender he was. He was absolutely bog standard technically. Chiellini has pretty much always been one of the quicker defenders in world football and is physically strong and tall as well. I am not really sure where you picked these examples from but they were very poorly chosen. You would have been better choosing a player like Modric as an example. Even then a team full of Modric's wouldn't be particularly good, honestly.
Phyaical ability != pace alone. John Terry was more physically dominant than Micah was overall.
An entire team of players with the Speed of Mbappe, Jumping of Michael Jordan, Strength of Akinfenwa, Dribbling of Lionel Messi and Anticipation of Inzaghi would absolutely compete in the premier league if they had even conference level technical ability. They would simply bully teams physically. Teams like that simply do not exist. Heck, even individual players like that do not exist.
Adama traore is not anywhere near the level of physical specimen that someone with 20 in all of the meta attributes would be. Lionel Messi is not just a technical player. It simply isn't a genuine representation of what I am saying.
There is absolutely no technical skill in football that is useful for the entirety of a football match. Physical ability is used in everything that you do.
That can potentially explain effect sizes but cannot adequately explain whether or not there are any effects. If any players on your team benefit from a certain stat, you will see an improvement with a size determined by how many players benefit and how much they benefit.
Passing having no impact in FM arena tests means it simply does not matter.
The idea that these players don’t exist or that this information isn’t actionable is absurd. You don’t need 20s in every stat, you just need to value those stats as highly as they deserve. Run a premier league season with a team of all Jonathan Quarcoo and you won’t get relegated.
https://preview.redd.it/t3phgn9nerlc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd2d8492510f9c1be27185214359206257383f76
Funny you mention adama Traore.
It's very simple:
ALL outfield players need acceleration and pace
Wide players and am's want dribbling
Central players want jumping reach.
That's it.
Congratulations. You just earned 1.0 points for this submission. Your new points total is 2.0. To see the leaderboard, as well as what this points thing is, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/wiki/leaderboard).
Physicals give more chances, it explains why some player irl are worse than fm. Biggest cases for me even in FM24 Daniel James, if asked to be a winger support on the right racked up 23 Assists. Eric Bailly man marked Haaland out of every game
Im not saying Physicals might not be overvalued in the ME, this is more about the "The Other Attritbutes don't matter at all" part.
It's not that they don't matter, they contribute, it's just that they are completely overmatched by physicals in every outfield position. Forsaken hit's the nail right on the head by saing "Physicals give more chances." This is my thinking with the entire thing too. It all comes down to math. One you stop looking at the match engine as "football" and as the math sim it is then it starts making more sense and all of a sudden Acceleration, Pace, Agility and Stamina become the game's key stats for all outfield positions. More chances = more success. All outfield positions have high CA weighting multipliers for these stats in the stat weightings, that's no accident, the dev's know they are really powerful. Physical attributes, especially acceleration and pace, will likely allow you to either get more attempts or be able to even get to make an attempt in the first place. In a numerical simulation using RNG the math is more likely to favour volume of oppertunities vs a single attempt. Two attempts at 40% chance of success has a higher success rate, of 64%, than making one attempt at 60%. Get a third attempt at the same 40% odds and you jump to 78.4%. The slower, "better", player who can only make one tackle is actually less mathematically effective than the faster, "worse", player who can recover and make a second attempt. Other attributes have effect in terms of their contribution to in game calculations. So a stat that is involved in 3 actions has less effect than one that's in 8. This is likely why a couple of the mentals, anticipation and concentration, seem to come up in the 'meme attributes' discussion. However none of those stats matter if you can't get to the ball or player in the first place and usually matters less than recovering from a failure to take another attempt.
I work as a sports scientist and this is how I explain the importance of fitness and speed to players and coaches. It gives them more opportunities on the ball, “at bats” if you will. Could be overpowered in the game but the concept is true IRL. A quirk you see with live GPS tracking in game is a lot of fast players actually struggle to use their speed in game contexts. For example a player we had in the past with 37kph top speed (properly fast) would usually barely scrape 31kph if that making a run through the defensive line - in his case I think he was scared of the physicality of the defenders given his injury history but during training he would make that run at 33-35kph easily.
Every player passes the ball. Adding 5 passing to the entire team has essentially zero variance to baseline team. This means they have +5 passing advantage on every player against the entire league and they don’t perform better than the control team. That is fucking wild to me. There are only 4 attributes that materially affect GD in arena testing. And another 4 that are barely above the margin of error. The only explanation is a lot of technical/mental are too dependent (force multipliers) for each other. Ie you need high technique/vision/passing to make any kind of difference. So increasing one without the other doesn’t do anything.
But isn't that what OP is saying? Combinations are crucial for the non-meta stats. But that's pretty sensible to me I don't understand the issue.
To add to this, I haven't seen much variation in tactic and roles either. Most of the tests I've seen have been done with a 4231, which is arguably the most popular formation. I'd like to see much more variation in the tests performed, but of course that's a massive time sink.
FM arena has tested it with multiple tactics in multiple versions of the game. Acceleration pace are always the most impactful to match engine. Then there is usually other physicals in the top usually agility and or balance and jumping. Sometimes dribbling makes an appearance. There was even tested blank instruction tactics. And the meta players still destroyed everyone. The meta tactics are actually overrated it is just the FM presets are awful and tactics people on reddit make are usually awful because they think it's real life or want to be different. The other test thread on FM arena showed if you average 3 points higher in acc and pace then the league you will win the league regardless of what are attributes are. There is absolutely a confirmed meta. No one has to play that way. But if you do then you dominate. And at a certain point everyone plays the meta because all world class players or real players or later new gens have absolute top physicals that's why they are world class
Would you mind linking these tests please?
I don't have the links as it's posted in FM arena forum threads. Not posted as a results page. I read it regularly so I knew about them. But they don't link the other tests anywhere so you gotta spend some time reading a bunch of threads
[удалено]
People really have a hard time understanding this. It’s also quite clear when you watch lower professional levels compared to elite football. All those guys are strong and fast but you can tell they don’t make the right decisions or understand space the way elite footballers do.
This is a discussion about football manager, not real life football.
Nice try but no. It's amazing the mental gymnastics people do just to somehow try to portray it as "realistic". That the mental and technical attributes do anything at all in certain positions does not mean all is fine. The goal should not be to just disprove the "non meta attributes are useless" theory. They should do far more than just "do something". How can people ignore that making the entire team top class in passing, vision, technique, decisions, composure does not make them really perform any better is beyond me. To answer your question "is this unrealistic?", it most defnitely is.
What I really think it comes down to is some people don't want to accept the idea that they've spent so many hours with such a flawed game.
10000000%.
These people are just trying so, so hard. No matter which critiques you might have for methodology in the experiments, the overarching message still stands. A lot of the attributes that FM says are important simply do not do anything, or do very little. I thought it was super clear. People who haven’t even run their own experiments show up and say they just scout based on pace and win. That should not be possible. I don’t see how people think that’s realistic.
Just my opinion: FM on Reddit has been going about this in a fundamentally flawed way. I.e. the experiments aren’t good. We need to be experimenting to gather information on HOW the engine works rather than just slapping attributes on people and drawing conclusions. It’s just really bad experimenting. For example, some attributes could be weighted relatively and others might be rated absolutely. Just something as simple as that line of thinking could make most of these experiment worth fuck all. For example, I’m pretty positive Anticipation, Flair, decisions, vision are all directly connected in a major way. To the point that you literally need all of them at a certain level or they could actually become a net negative to a player in some situations. For example, and THIS IS JUST CONJECTURE: if I was a game designer playing with these attributes it’d go like this: Vision dictates how many of the other players on the pitch a player is aware of. Anticipation is your players ability to predict what the players HE IS AWARE OF are going to do next. Flair is the extravagance of a play your player is willing to try, based on what he sees, and assumes is going to happen next You cycle thru all of those things, and are left with a number of decisions. Now the Decisions attribute dictates which of the possible choices your player ultimately goes with, within a window of reasonable decisions. So trying to think like a programmer here, they are all filters your possible actions are pressed thru until your decisions attribute selects from the leftover choices, after running thru the filter of several attributes. if you are lacking sufficiently in one of those areas, having an unbalanced or “too high score” in another area could actually be a BAD THING if this is the case. It makes sense to me. If a player has high vision he can see the whole field, but if he lacks anticipation he’s just watching plays break open and sending it in offsides. A player with high anticipation and no vision just has extreme tunnel vision. He knows exactly what the guy he’s staring directly at will do, but he doesn’t know the other players even exist. He’s basing all his actions off what that guy he’s staring at is doing. A player with high flair and shit anticipation will be trying to lead guys open with curling passes right into defenders feet. Having a high score in everything except shitty decisions is basically the purest form of a crap shoot possible. He sees what’s happening, can predict the next move, and has flash to pull it off, but all of those skills give him 20 different options to “decide” on and he can’t make up his mind. So I’d say you need to view attributes as sets, firstly, and figure how they scale, secondly, or we are just jerking ourselves off. Decisions is absolutely a purely useless attribute if you have no decisions to choose from because youre blind and basic. Conversely, having mountains of flair and vision but no anticipation or decisions might actually HURT you a lot more than help you. So yeah, 20 vision on your team full of 6th tier players isnt going to help. They see the whole field but have no idea what’s going on or how to take advantage. I think this is more true for mental attributes. Not even touching Teamwork, Concentration, composure but you best bet they all largely interconnected to the point that having one at 20 while the others are 8 is the equivalent of replacing only your front right tire with a racing slick and wondering why your cars performance hasn’t dramatically increased. On physical attributes: Of course they’re more valuable. They’re the catalyst that physically puts you in position to take action regardless of literally everything else. If the opposition is just on an alien level of athleticism compared to you, you are going to lose in sports, even if you’ve spent your entire life practicing and they only have comparatively basic skills. Being a .000000001% athlete is more valuable than being a very good sportsman. Anyone can be a very good sportsman with enough practice. Elite athletes are born. Crafted in the womb by the hands of Ares himself, to dominate competition and dash lesser men against the stones of defeat. The athleticism is what separate the world class from everyone else. They can all pass and dribble from non league to the prem. The best have an advantage in the one place you can’t teach. They’re just faster and stronger. And maybe a little better at reading the game. But there’s is a hard threshold for athleticism and drastically increasing returns on a “speed difference” in sports. I feel like people who have played a lot of sports understand this inherently. I was a good to very good American football player from a skill perspective. No way in any world could I have played division one college ball. I’m too small, weak and slow. No matter how much I workout and train I’ll always be too small, weak, and slow to play football at that level. Whereas an athletic guy who has never played sports in his life, but can run a 4.4 second 40 and rep 300 pounds on the bench could be given a chance, learn late and be a vastly more effective football player than I ever would despite me having 10x the “skill”. Regarding the test, a player with 20 in every physical doesn’t exist. I mean that human being isn’t real in the actual world. You’re literally testing mortals against alien superhuman athletes crafted in a lab. Skills don’t matter at that point. Long ass post. I had time and been wanting to share my thoughts 🤙🏻
There was an experiment where someone just boosted all mentals and technicals of Palace team to 16 - and it had no significant effect on results. Wouldnt that disprove your argument? So we have realistic players who are now team of what should be insanely press resistant machines but they kinda sorta do fuck all.
At the risk of repeating myself, there's a reasonable test that could be done to dispel that: [https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/comments/1aum8zj/comment/kr5go7n/](https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/comments/1aum8zj/comment/kr5go7n/) **Test A:** **1.** Get best tactics from FM-Arena, check roles on tactics, check FM importance of the attributes for those specific roles. Adopt a 1 (unimportant) - 2 (slightly important) - 4 (crucial) attribute increase based on role importance until you hit an arbitrary CA cap (120 CA or 140 CA for example). Repeat for every player until you have a team with the CA cap tailored to the roles according to what FM is telling you. Theoretically, all things being the same (no injuries, no morale changes, etc. ) this should consistently give you the best results possible. **2.** Use a random starting game template tactic. Adopt the same 1-2-4 attribute increase, but this time using the FM-Arena attribute importance, basically creating very fast, strong, aerially powerful players at CA cap. Theoretically, because we know how important these attributes are, they should/can give the team an advantage, but over the long term, it should not produce better results than a perfect mixture of the combination of attributes that FM specifies are the best for a player playing in a certain position. **Test B:** Make Test A's teams play against each other. Theoretically, in a 1 on 1, the team with the optimized stat combination according to FM, using a tactic that has been tested to be one of the best, should consistently beat a team with good but not optimized stats and with an unoptimized tactic.
Literally the tests fm arena does they have an entire test thread on the so called player position highlighted attributes and it's was discovered the game recommended attributes aren't as good as the meta
I'm under the impression that the tests they've done consisted on increasing one attribute by 5 or decreasing other attribute to verify the impact of that one attribute, which is not what I suggested.
That is what the tables are but they do lots of tests that are in their forum and not posted with tables. Usually one if the 2 admins post random tests when people request them
I'm under the impression that the tests they've done consisted on increasing one attribute by 5 or decreasing other attribute to verify the impact of that one attribute, which is not what I suggested. EDIT: The closest I can find is this [](https://fm-arena.com/thread/5351-should-you-follow-the-highlighted-attributes-of-the-roles/) which likewise is not what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting reshuffling one or a few players weights, but making a tailored team for the highlighted attributes of the roles vs a tailored team for the meta attributes and see how both teams compare as a whole, rather than individual positions.
You are referencing the tests where they post the results in a table and it has a main link. If you actually read the forum regularly other tests by the admin come up and are never posted with direct link or tables. The one thread is all about FM highlighted attributes vs the meta. And how the highlighted attributes are bogus compared to the meta. The meta team severely outperformed the highlight attribute team. Pretty sure it was over a year old original thread. If I find it I'll link you. FM arena in the forum does a lot more tests that never get direct links or result pages
There was a test where they took a mezzala (a position which doesn't have pace highlighted at all, but has off the ball and vision marked as the most important attribute) and changed some of the attributes. They first took away some of the pace away from the Mezzala, and put an equal amount of CA into the "important attributes" (attributes highlighted by the game) instead. It made them play much worse, despite the fact that the game tells you the other attributes are way more important for mezzala specifically. Then they repeated the test again, removing all points from vision and redistributing the CA into physicals, and this made the mezzala perform much better, despite the fact that the game tells you physical attributes are not as important. This shows that the game is wrong about which attributes are important for each position, and you would have to test it manually. And because we have so many attributes and even more roles, it's just not a test that's feasible to do.
I think people use a lot of mental gymnastics to defend the game. Maybe for some attributes you can say they might or might not be position specific. However things like passing and technique? It’s absolutely strange that changing something like passing has zero effect on team outcomes as shown in the FM Arena tests. I’m not really sure what it would take for some of you guys to be convinced.
Denial can play a big part in some people
It is just a non-issue. Football IS ruled by players who are physically gifted. There are exceedingly few players who aren't any of the following: Fast, strong, tall, agile or at the very don't have elite dribbling. Any player who does lack all of these relies on having other players around him for him to pass to. A team full of players without any elite athletes is fucked, even in real life. At the end of the day only one player on the pitch has the ball at their feet at any one time. Every other player on the pitch is running. It is no surprise that the team with the better athletes is going to win the majority of the time. Physicals are NEVER useless at any point during a football match. Ever. Long shots, passing, long throws, free kicks, corners, penalties, finishing, technique, first touch etc etc are useless for the majority of any individual football match. If you do not have the ball the you cannot make use of them.
[удалено]
Some people are so obsessed with trying to justify SI's shit algorithm, it's insane. I always wonder how they'd argue with Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta being the best midfield 3 in the history of the sport despite none of them being quick or strong
Or you're simply missing my point. Those players were undeniably world-class, and they made the other players on their team better. You would not want an entire team of them, though. They needed players like Messi, Neymar, and Suarez to give the ball to. It was a symbiotic relationship. Their lack of physicality is overstated, though. Iniesta was incredibly agile and decently quick. Xavi had incredible balance and was also agile. Busquets was taller than the majority of players and was pretty strong. None of them were physically incapable. They had their physical strengths and the technical ability on top of that.
So you're telling me a theoretical squad of Kimmich - Chiellini - Carragher - Lahm Kroos - Busquets - Xavi David Silva - Bergkamp - Iniesta would struggle because none of them are fast or particularly strong outside of the 2 CBs? That team would run rings around 99% of current teams in Europe. Also, before you argue that several of those players are agile, your criteria makes it almost impossible to find anyone that doesn't fit into any of "Fast, strong, tall, agile or at the very don't have elite dribbling". If you aren't tall, you're short and short players have a low center of gravity so short athletes are almost always agile and nimble, especially if they aren't strong
>A team full of players that lack technical and mental ability would be even more fucked in real life. That isn't the case in FM. My IRL in the Conference South and you see so many Sorry but I hard disagree. Just look at what happens when professional womens teams play against even semi-professional male players. Technically they are far better players but they are absolutely outclassed physically and it leads to them being destroyed. Or look at how there are older retired players who are technical beasts like Paul Scholes who have played at a non-league level for fun and cannot dominate games. Or how literal celebrities can compete against retired footballers in events like socceraid without being completely outclassed. Being literally unable to kick a ball would be different but even a 1 on FM is a semi-professional standard and not a complete inability to play football. > Otherwise Micah Richards would have been a better defender than John Terry, or Chiellini, which clearly wasn't the case. Neither Chiellini nor John Terry are bad athletes, at all. John Terry was a man mountain who was super physical. Honestly it was his physical gifts that made him the defender he was. He was absolutely bog standard technically. Chiellini has pretty much always been one of the quicker defenders in world football and is physically strong and tall as well. I am not really sure where you picked these examples from but they were very poorly chosen. You would have been better choosing a player like Modric as an example. Even then a team full of Modric's wouldn't be particularly good, honestly.
[удалено]
Phyaical ability != pace alone. John Terry was more physically dominant than Micah was overall. An entire team of players with the Speed of Mbappe, Jumping of Michael Jordan, Strength of Akinfenwa, Dribbling of Lionel Messi and Anticipation of Inzaghi would absolutely compete in the premier league if they had even conference level technical ability. They would simply bully teams physically. Teams like that simply do not exist. Heck, even individual players like that do not exist. Adama traore is not anywhere near the level of physical specimen that someone with 20 in all of the meta attributes would be. Lionel Messi is not just a technical player. It simply isn't a genuine representation of what I am saying. There is absolutely no technical skill in football that is useful for the entirety of a football match. Physical ability is used in everything that you do.
That can potentially explain effect sizes but cannot adequately explain whether or not there are any effects. If any players on your team benefit from a certain stat, you will see an improvement with a size determined by how many players benefit and how much they benefit. Passing having no impact in FM arena tests means it simply does not matter. The idea that these players don’t exist or that this information isn’t actionable is absurd. You don’t need 20s in every stat, you just need to value those stats as highly as they deserve. Run a premier league season with a team of all Jonathan Quarcoo and you won’t get relegated. https://preview.redd.it/t3phgn9nerlc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd2d8492510f9c1be27185214359206257383f76
If you think the game is too META then dont play it noone is forcing you
Funny you mention adama Traore. It's very simple: ALL outfield players need acceleration and pace Wide players and am's want dribbling Central players want jumping reach. That's it.