If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
I tend to just send my scouts, but occasionally I've been known to directly scout particularly promising looking players from the lower divisions.
Is there a problem with scouting by statistical prowess? Yes, if you don't play with full details there is quite a discrepancy of stats generated by the "lesser" engine used in the division above and below you and those generated by the full match engine in your own division. Hence, you can't really trust average ratings in other divisions under these conditions. But that's what you got your scouts for, right?
I'm not going to go into your ways of selecting players, as personally I feel they are very dodgy. But each to thier own.
I never ever go by stats alone. Stats only show how good the player is playing in the club he is presently at. He might be surrounded by players who can take the pressure off him, and so his stats can become "inflated".
Take him out of that safe enviroment and put him into a position where he is not surrounded by good players, with different expectations and the walls can come tumbling down as you have observed.
The same goes for attributes. They only tell a part of the story, and hidden attributes can either help or hinder a player who on the surface looks like a class/carp player.
Your backroom staff are there to help you in your decisions. Thats why you have hired them. Listen to them. They are not always wrong, although like you they can make a wrong judgements.
There have been many times where my backroom staff have said a player is pants, while I am seeing four star material. I've proved them wrong and the player becomes a star for the club, and conversely the backroom staff have said "told you he was pants" as the four star player wallows in the Reserves on a huge wage structure.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
He was the highest rated defensive player in the division, averaging close to an 8 rating. His tackles per outting were over six
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Show me somewhere where these stats are shown in RL in the LL.
I'm not trying to tell you how to play your game btw, far from it. Just my personal opinion.
It's more a game mechanic for CM than anything else, although players are rated IIRC by some newspapers. More a PL type of thing, and I doubt a running average total is kept for the lower league players.
It does give CM body, and as we are not watching the players perform week in week out in a RL type atmosphere, it give you a reference point as such.
I've lost count the amount of times I have seen a player with very bad attribute stats perform week in week out. It's those hidden things like his personality aspects that makes me enjoy this game so much. You've got to tear away the outer cover of the stats of the players and try and look behind the scenes of your players. The great beauty of this game is that each player is an individual, each has his own personality, and it is up to you to get the best out of them. Whats the saying? There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.
I'd like to see the 1-20 attributes ditched altogether, and replaced with a very poor to excellent type rating system, but alas I can't see this happening.
[This message was edited by Taipan on 30 January 2004 at 9:45.]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Taipan:
I'd like to see the 1-20 attributes ditched altogether, and replaced with a very poor to excellent type rating system, but alas I can't see this happening.
[This message was edited by Taipan on 30 January 2004 at 9:45.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahh yes, I absolutely agree with you. I should think ten or so categories ranging from awful to phenomenal would be adequate. What could be done, without foregoing the numbers, is allow an option much like 'fog of war' which, when selected, would translate numeric ratings into text type rating.
This would also be extra valuable with scouting reports. You can get a report back that says "x is an excellent passer and has a great shot, but his work rate is a bit poor." Or something along those lines. It would be more fun that way IMO...
That could also reflect the league you are in. In the conference he might be an excellent passer but by premier league standards he may be a bit lack lustre.
Just another idea: We now have a page full of values for a player's physical, mental and technical caracteristics. How about having also a page of hidden attributes, which would appear as the game rolls on? For example, concistency, which is a hidden attribute. That should be hidden for the first few matches (or seasons), and then appear as an "obvious" attribute. Allowing thus for a reasonable amount of time, during which the manager will have made his deductions (just as IRL). Other stats could appear through your coaches reports on players, which could be deducted by the players performance during training.
I would love to see a move away from the numbers. They can still use them in the background just don't make them visible to us. A 4-5 item scale from 'very poor' to 'excellent' would be much more realistic. Maybe as an extra option just like FOW, so people can decide for themselves which way they like better.
I almost always ignore my Ass Man - they all seem to be complete muppets in CM. Almost without exception they tell me that any goalkeeper I look to sign isn't worthwhile even if I only currently have 1 GK!
scouting for talent 
Linear Mode
