Antonio Valencia, the best example of the value of hidden attributes?

[Runstream]

After the patch, when the ME finally makes some sense, I won the Premiership and Champions league the first season with Man Utd. Valencia was voted my player of the year, and Premier League player of the year. He got 19 assists and 7 goals in 26 matches. This, while he never got more than three stars from my assistant(going strong with Mike Phelan), and was down to two and a half for a spell. My best player is rated as one of my worst, and I guess the assistant feedback doesn't reflect the value of hidden attributes and the, seamingly updated, value of role-suiting attributes. Anyone else have players that keep performing at a top level, despite their attributes not beeing that pleasing to the eye?

[mental man]

For Liverpool, Aissaidi, Downing and Pacheco all did wonders in my first season for me for 30+ games.

[baxter51]

stefan strandberg was a 2 and a half star according to my assistant who had 18 judging ability and 19 judging potential but got an average rating at the end of the season of 7.65 but didnt get in team of the year, wanted to get a replacement for him but werent sure cause he played well

[Cai1234]

In one of my saves James McCarthy was at 2 1/2 stars throughout yet he was my key player with 7.80 averege rating.

[Joel`]

All about how you utilise players and their attributes in your system. If you have Neymar and fail to provide a system for him to thrive, barring moments of magic he'll occasionally produce, his overall performance won't be so high. A system that lets Valencia maximise his potential would give you more reward even though he's a "lesser" player.

Even last year on FM12, I picked Camacho up on the cheap from Malaga since he was going for cheap, Malaga never played him and my scouts didn't rate him at all. Ended up being the best £2m I ever spent, while on paper he wasn't rated as well as your Moussa Sissoko's etc. he had attributes in the right places to do everything needed of him, and he was crucial to my team from first qualifying for the CL, all the way to eventually winning it years later when I had £50m budgets to replace him if I wanted.

[InValide jr]

I have the same thing with my CB borja gomez hes rated like a star worse than my other cbs but he got a 7.6 rating over the season so i keep playing him

[mersk]

Corchia only has 3* rating for me, but he's immense at right back. Also, Rodrigo has only 2.5* but his attributes are perfect for a poacher, and he's scoring on a regular basis for me.

Always take the ratings with a pinch of salt, even if it's good or bad. Check his attributes, his record (past performances), and make a decision based on more than just what your scouts or your assistant manager says.

[apvmoreira]

It was the same thing in 12. Players are good or bad, depending on stars?

Some of us say that the stars are given based on your squad. So, if you have Messi, you should not have no one getting a 5 star from the scouts, since he is the best (in the game).

I can't agree with this and i don't agree with static max CA, but its what we have and we have to play like this.

In conclusion, you may pick a 5 start that it isn't a 5 star, and you can pick a 2 star that as a performance of a 5 star

[TJD07]

Shane Long, 40+ goals a season and 10 or so assists, who needs RVP

It was the same thing in 12. Players are good or bad, depending on stars?

Some of us say that the stars are given based on your squad. So, if you have Messi, you should not have no one getting a 5 star from the scouts, since he is the best (in the game).

I can't agree with this and i don't agree with static max CA, but its what we have and we have to play like this.

In conclusion, you may pick a 5 start that it isn't a 5 star, and you can pick a 2 star that as a performance of a 5 star

The stars are based on your squad strength (not just one player) and how good your scouts, ass.man etc are at predicting player ability/potential. The stars are just a reflection of current CA and PA not how well suited that player is to doing a role, which is why alot of regens can be 4.5 stars or something yet have really poor stats for the position they're natural in.

[HortySlayer]

I had a really successful Wigan career on FM 2012 and I played 3 up front, 2 wide strikers who were pacey, good at dribbling, passing and finishing then the middle man was a big guy who could finish, strong and good at heading. I found a guy at Juve who was like 22 years old, 6 ft 8 ST, had 20 strength, 19 heading and 20 jumping. He had like 18 finishing and composure as well as quite a lot of other good stats so he was amazing for that role, but he was rated by my top scout (20 on both) as 2 and a half star potential, 2 star CA. I got him for 2 mill as I knew he would be great, I had an amazing set of strikers in that team yet he averaged like 8.21 and was insane, over a goal a game. Think he was rated my 7th best striker, but did the best showing how the reports can be meaningless.

As a side point on this years game I am doing a career as newcastle and found a guy who looked like he could be pretty good at Sparta Prague when he was 16. He is now a 19 year old ST who has 20 pace, 17 finishing, dribbling, accel, agi. 18 crossing and corners and plenty of other great stats at just 19. He is 3 Star CA and 5 Star PA for me and he only cost 200k. But my scout said he had 2 and a half star potential when I scouted him because they often scout the potential as if that is his potential if he stays at that club with that setup and facilities. So if you see a great player at a poor team their potential will often be a lot better than it looks, especially in random European and African Sides