Are attributes really the most important factor in how a player performs?
This is a question I've asked myself a lot over the years. In the initial FM games, it was most certainly the case that the better the attributes of an individual, the better they performed over the course of seasons/careers.
In my case I have a couple of players competing for each position. I often alternate individuals and give them runs in the team. What I am finding increasingly difficult to understand is that poorer players with poorer stats manage to consistently perform better than supposedly better players, as in better averages over the season and far less mistakes. I will post comparisons later, but my main grievance is with my club captain CB having great stats, yet performing way under his abilities compared to a younger, poorer defender. The same can be applied to many players. I often find that if they are described by a coach as consistent or inconsistent, this plays a HUGE part in how they perform. My argument is, why sign a 5* player who isn't "consistent" when you can sign a 4* player who is "consistent", as the player with worse stats will still perform better.
Does anyone understand where I am coming from?
This is a question I've asked myself a lot over the years. In the initial FM games, it was most certainly the case that the better the attributes of an individual, the better they performed over the course of seasons/careers.
In my case I have a couple of players competing for each position. I often alternate individuals and give them runs in the team. What I am finding increasingly difficult to understand is that poorer players with poorer stats manage to consistently perform better than supposedly better players, as in better averages over the season and far less mistakes. I will post comparisons later, but my main grievance is with my club captain CB having great stats, yet performing way under his abilities compared to a younger, poorer defender. The same can be applied to many players. I often find that if they are described by a coach as consistent or inconsistent, this plays a HUGE part in how they perform. My argument is, why sign a 5* player who isn't "consistent" when you can sign a 4* player who is "consistent", as the player with worse stats will still perform better.
Does anyone understand where I am coming from?