retired_yolanda

Good point, Greg. There are cases, in which we have no option but to sign a player the scout doesn't rate good enough to play for the club.

Then again, I have rarely disagreed with a negative scout report, mostly when he says the player is bad, he really is bad.


But this brings us to another issue, the (bad) quality of scout and AssMan reports, they should have much more detail, and from that detail we could discover if the player is good enough for the team. Just saying the player is shit doesn't help, the scout must tell us what his weak and strong areas are.

For example, you could be in need of a tall centre-back with good heading, as your team concedes mostly goals through the air. Your scout sees as player who he rates as a bad player, but he doesn't say if he's a good header, because he can be an almost binary player and have good heading, and that could still help your team.

retired_yolanda

I think we all agree on this except that Greb guy.

retired_sriracha

Sad...

In your case Greg, seems to me like a mistake from the scout. If is something related to the engine, well, the scout is an engine.

I think is Valid. :thup:

retired_sriracha

Don't get it... I'm the one who agree with that!

retired_yolanda

Maybe you put in in a different way.

retired_raistlin1979

I see both sides of this.

I think jcb's taking the "LLM Zealot" bit too far here. If a player has put up fantastic stats for the year, but the scouts don't recommend him.. but you're desparate for a warm body... well, just don't spend too much on him. ;-)

On the other hand, if you continually go against your scout's recommendations, well, that's both stupid & not realistic. There are a lot of hidden attributes in the game, and we've all had our share of "crappy attributes but star player" and "great attributes but crap on the field."

retired_sriracha

That way?

Agreed. :thup:

retired_mrsjb

I have to disagree, although you're right to a point. If a situation, like Greg's for example, arises where being realistic is unrealistic, and you can honestly say that to yourself, then that's fine in my book.

What I don't accept is the other stated position whereby the guy has deliberately signed a player without heed to his scout, but claims that, because he scouted him, he's playing LLM. That's bullsh*t. He's more than welcome to play his game how he likes, but don't try and tell me that's LLM, because it isn't. Frankly, I don't care if I'm overreacting, because I've had enough of the little arsehole coming in here and acting like he owns the place when he's barely, if at all, playing LLM. LLM isn't about rules. It's a way of playing, and he just doesn't get it.

retired_kswansonwoolf

OK, let me further explain my point.

As far as my experience in CM and FM goes, scouts suck. Their reports are typical: "X would be a decent acquisition for the club", "Y would be nothing more than a fringe player", "Z isn't good enough to be signed", and on and on.

Which criteria does the scout use for these evaluations? CA and PA. No word on his recent form, no word on his hidden stats (I've always said that hidden stats is lame and unrealistic... they should be shown as the player spends more time at the club, either training or playing), no justification as to why the guy sucks.

Whatever the scouts' criteria are, they have nothing to do with my tactical needs and plans. They don't take my personal needs into account, they just make generic comments that might as well not be there, as they simply aren't helping me.

Which is why, ever since the golden days of Cm01/02 Scouting, I've restricted the scout to just one role: find players and remove the Fog of War. The number of times they've recommended excellent prospects that turned out to be crap (not just because of their obvious numbers, but their hidden stats too) is obscene. The number of times the only recommended and much needed AMR was tipped to warm the bench at best and proceded to average 8.50 over the season is certainly not to be underestimated. I've signed both complete donkeys and absolute stars in this way. But it's a risk I'm willing to take.

I'm also against shooting yourself in the leg. If one is willing to disobey a scout's positive recommendation because the player looks crap to one, I don't see the logic behind blindly obeying a scout's negative recommendation on a player that looks like the dog's gnads to you.

retired_mrsjb

Do you find a player, plan to sign him, and send out the scouts just so it's "allowed by the rules"?

It's a question of degrees, Kostis. You and I both know that there's a multitude of ways to interpret scout reports that are all within the LLM ethos. And we can have this discussion knowing that we're both trying to do this with the spirit of LLM.

Someone in this thread has essentially admitted to answering yes to that first paragraph question, and that isn't in the spirit of LLM.


As an aside, I wonder if my phraseology in this post has been affected by the fact my media player is playing Rush's song "Spirit of Radio" :o