magheks

So i scout a player i think looks pretty good, and they come back saying he'd be a "decent" signing. does this rule the player out of ever being one of the worlds greatest? or are the scouts sometimes not totally correct?
what do you think?
for example; with my tottenham team i scouted Jimmy Briand, they said he'd be decent, but hes turned out to be better than that.

HoPeY

Depends how good your scout is for judging player potential and ablity. What is this scouts stats for these two things? Also did you just scout him for one game? Or over three?

magheks

yea thats a good point, being the impatient person i am i just ask for a report card. so yourse saying report cards arnt much of a good idea?

HoPeY

No, I am saying you need a top class scout and ideally you should scout him for more than one game. After all its hard to judge someone on just one game :/

Jazzfusion

I usually just get report cards, and any player my scouts give > 4 stars potential to, and has good stats in key areas will get my interest

sherica-

the scout report is based on the quality of the league you are currently playing and also the quality of your current crop of players.

Briand is a bad example because he belong to the group of players that perform well above what their stats reflect.

BillyLikesFish&Chips

Scouts can be wrong no matter what their stats are. I used FMM to find a couple of 15-17 year old English regens that had a PA of 180+. After I found them I sent my world class scouts with 18+ in JP and JA to check them out and they came back with crap reviews but I still bought them anyway because I new how good they really were or will be. One of them is dubbed the new Teddy Sheringham. :cool: