I'm sure many of you, just like me, have wondered whether it's possible to win English Premier League managing one of the weakest team in the league or how long would it take to achieve that.
So I've done a test to find out it. I picked Bournemouth, one of the weakest team in the league that was predicted to finish 20th.
The 7 important attributes chosen for the increasing were: Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling.
ROUND #1: Default Attributes In the table below the results have been translated into 38 matches Average CA = 122
ROUND #2: +2 Points to Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling In the table below the results have been translated into 38 matches Average CA = 142
ROUND #3: +3 Points to Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling In the table below the results have been translated into 38 matches Average CA = 149
As you can see winning EPL with the default Bournemouth team is a quite difficult task because the team gets only about 64 points on average per season when Man City and Liverpool get 85-90 points on average per season. I'd say winning the EPL with the default Bournemouth team is still possible but you need to be very lucky to do that, I mean your team must have the best season, far better than its average season and Man City and Liverpool must have the worst season, much worse than their average season.
When the Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling attributes of the players get 2 points increase then the team start getting about 85-87 points on average per season so wining EPL becomes a much easier task but still winning EPL isn't assured because if you have your worst season and Man City and Liverpool have their best season then highly likely they win the league.
Finally, when the Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling attributes of the players get 3 points increase then the team starts getting 92-95 points on average per season, which further increases the chances of winning the EPL, it becomes almost assured.
I just wanted to demonstrate you how the game works, as you can see it isn't only about having the best tactic but also about having the best players. You can spend months on improving your tactic to improve the result by 1 point or you can increase 7 attributes of the players by 3 points and that would improve the result by about 30 points from 64 points to 94 points.
Also, look at the CA of the players in the Round 3, it's only about 150CA, which means it's still possible to get much better players with 160CA-180CA and further greatly improve the result but also, note that to have a solid chances of winning EPL it requires having at least 150CA players.
That's some cool findings ! @Zippo would it be possible to do a similar test without plugging in tactics ? and see how far you need to improve the team stats to win the league ?
Edit : Or maybe test using a similar 4-2-4 tactic that scored 58,56,54 on the testing table to see how much we need to upgrade players to be champions
MemorizableUsername said: Edit : Or maybe test using a similar 4-2-4 tactic that scored 58,56,54 on the testing table to see how much we need to upgrade players to be champions Expand
Jamal Lowe was given Natural rating for CM position so it was possible to test both tactics with the same players.
There wasn't any player rotation. The same starting eleven were used to play all matches. The morale and conditions of the players were locked at 100%, which also was done for the AI teams.
The testing conditions were the same for both tests.
ROUND #1: Default Attributes In the table below the results have been translated into 38 matches
Average CA = 122
ROUND #2: +2 Points to Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling In the table below the results have been translated into 38 matches
Average CA = 142
ROUND #3: +3 Points to Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling In the table below the results have been translated into 38 matches
Also note, in FM-Arena testing the difference between "Poatan 451" tactic and "424 Alhamdulillah II 0.8" tactic is "18" points.
But in this test:
In the Round #1 the difference between tactics is "14" points.
In the Round #2 the difference between tactics is "9" points.
In the Round #3 the difference between tactics is "7" points.
The above result means that the stronger/weaker your team comparing with your opponents, the smaller role the tactic plays.
So testing tactics with a team that is much stronger or weaker than other teams in league isn't a good idea because such testing would be very ineffective.
Also, the result of this test shows that if you build a "Dream Team" with players like Mbappe, Messi, Neymar and similar best players then the quality of your tactic would become kinda irrelevant
Zippo said: Also note, in FM-Arena testing the difference between "Poatan 451" tactic and "424 Alhamdulillah II 0.8" tactic is "18" points.
But in this test:
In the Round #1 the difference between tactics is "14" points.
In the Round #2 the difference between tactics is "9" points.
In the Round #3 the difference between tactics is "7" points.
The above result means that the stronger/weaker your team comparing with your opponents, the smaller role the tactic plays.
So testing tactics with a team that is much stronger or weaker than other teams in league isn't a good idea because such testing would very ineffective.
Also, the result of this test shows that if you build a "Dream Team" with players like Mbappe, Messi, Neymar and similar best players then the quality of your tactic would become kinda irrelevant Expand
Well that explains why PSG / Real Madrid has a really high chance of winning the Champions League on holiday !
Zippo said: Could you elaborate? I don't understand your question. Expand
No worries, when you added +3 to these attributes, Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling. What was the lowest attribute value set at?
I'm just trying to work out if say the value of 12 in each of those attributes would be enough. I am looking to adapt my attribute filters to those attributes but Im looking to see what values will be needed
CBP87 said: No worries, when you added +3 to these attributes, Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling. What was the lowest attribute value set at?
I'm just trying to work out if say the value of 12 in each of those attributes would be enough. I am looking to adapt my attribute filters to those attributes but Im looking to see what values will be needed Expand
CBP87 said: No worries, when you added +3 to these attributes, Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling. What was the lowest attribute value set at?
I'm just trying to work out if say the value of 12 in each of those attributes would be enough. I am looking to adapt my attribute filters to those attributes but Im looking to see what values will be needed Expand
The starting attributes were the default attributes as Bournemouth players have them at the start of the game.
Cherknam said: Are these the most important stats for every position? Do I need to prioritise dribbling for CBs? Expand
These were just the starting attribute values for Bournemouth and what they would've been with +3, I'd say you'd need to find a base value for all of the attributes
@Zippo When choosing the attributes why did you eliminate Jumping Reach, Balance, Finishing from your list when these scored higher than others in the attribute testing? Obviously JR and Finishing are quiet position specfic but balance is generic?
I'm just interested, I have been using GS with Marks file, but I want to eliminate GS use now, so I'm going to try and focus on the method you have used here
Middleweight165 said: @Zippo When choosing the attributes why did you eliminate Jumping Reach, Balance, Finishing from your list when these scored higher than others in the attribute testing? Obviously JR and Finishing are quiet position specfic but balance is generic?
I'm just interested, I have been using GS with Marks file, but I want to eliminate GS use now, so I'm going to try and focus on the method you have used here Expand
Yes, you're right that Jumping Reach and Finishing are quite position specific attributes and that's why I decided not to include them in the list but Balance is generic and could be included.
The reason why I didn't include Balance is because I wanted to keep the attribute list as short as possible so that's why I didn't include it as many other attributes that could included. Of course, when you play the game in normal way then paying attention to other attributes would beneficial and that's what you should do.
Is there a way perhaps to try and moneyball this mother? So if we work on the basis of the table and maybe figure out a base of attributes that aren't important per position. So for example let's say a 50 rating of importance/weight per the YKYKYKY balanced genie scout ratings. If we give those attributes of 50 an in game value of say 10? This is based on managing in the Premier League. Could we then somehow get the evaluation of a player down to one single number through an equation. Going from attributes that are weighted 50 right through to 100+. Do you guys think this is possible? I read in another thread Mark had come up with RCAT or something?
Chriswin4 said: Is there a way perhaps to try and moneyball this mother? So if we work on the basis of the table and maybe figure out a base of attributes that aren't important per position. So for example let's say a 50 rating of importance/weight per the YKYKYKY balanced genie scout ratings. If we give those attributes of 50 an in game value of say 10? This is based on managing in the Premier League. Could we then somehow get the evaluation of a player down to one single number through an equation. Going from attributes that are weighted 50 right through to 100+. Do you guys think this is possible? I read in another thread Mark had come up with RCAT or something? Expand
This is something I am interested in as well. Managing in the lower leagues its difficult to find good players, this project is too advanced for me though
@Zippo How do you think teams would compare with a same average CA but one with more points distributed in the key attributes and the other with a more even distribution and less points in the key attributes and both using the same tactics?
I'm using @Mark GS ratings to choose players but I'm wondering if I would be better using @ZaZ which I believe is more weighted to these key attributes
Middleweight165 said: @Zippo How do you think teams would compare with a same average CA but one with more points distributed in the key attributes and the other with a more even distribution and less points in the key attributes and both using the same tactics? Expand
Zippo said: Hi. Sorry, I don't get what you mean. Expand
You compared a Bournemouth against higher average CA teams, Man City, Liverpool. I'm curious to know what you think would happen if you compared teams with the same CA but one of those teams eg Bournemouth like your test had a higher scores in the important attributes.
I'd like to know is it simply CA that is the defining factor or specifically those attributes. I think the tactic plays a huge role in you being able to compete against the bigger teams
Middleweight165 said: You compared a Bournemouth against higher average CA teams, Man City, Liverpool. I'm curious to know what you think would happen if you compared teams with the same CA but one of those teams eg Bournemouth like your test had a higher scores in the important attributes.
I'd like to know is it simply CA that is the defining factor or specifically those attributes. I think the tactic plays a huge role in you being able to compete against the bigger teams Expand
In that test the CA of every player stayed the same and only what were chaining is their attributes, speaking other words, the CA was re-distributed from the highlighted attributes of Roles/Duties to Acceleration and Pace. And if you look at the result of that test then you'll that the general level of CA isn't what determines the result and the distribution of CA is much more important.
In that test the CA of every player stayed the same and only what were chaining is their attributes, speaking other words, the CA was re-distributed from the highlighted attributes of Roles/Duties to Acceleration and Pace. And if you look at the result of that test then you'll that the general level of CA isn't what determines the result and the distribution of CA is much more important. Expand
Hi there,
I'm sure many of you, just like me, have wondered whether it's possible to win English Premier League managing one of the weakest team in the league or how long would it take to achieve that.
So I've done a test to find out it. I picked Bournemouth, one of the weakest team in the league that was predicted to finish 20th.
For the test I used this tactic - https://fm-arena.com/tactic/4094-424-alhamdulillah-ii-0-8/
After each round of testing I increased 7 important attributes from our attribute testing by 1 point - https://fm-arena.com/table/18-attribute-testing/
The 7 important attributes chosen for the increasing were: Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling.
ROUND #1:
Default Attributes
In the table below the results have been translated into 38 matches
Average CA = 122
ROUND #2:
+2 Points to Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling
In the table below the results have been translated into 38 matches
Average CA = 142
ROUND #3:
+3 Points to Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling
In the table below the results have been translated into 38 matches
Average CA = 149
As you can see winning EPL with the default Bournemouth team is a quite difficult task because the team gets only about 64 points on average per season when Man City and Liverpool get 85-90 points on average per season. I'd say winning the EPL with the default Bournemouth team is still possible but you need to be very lucky to do that, I mean your team must have the best season, far better than its average season and Man City and Liverpool must have the worst season, much worse than their average season.
When the Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling attributes of the players get 2 points increase then the team start getting about 85-87 points on average per season so wining EPL becomes a much easier task but still winning EPL isn't assured because if you have your worst season and Man City and Liverpool have their best season then highly likely they win the league.
Finally, when the Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling attributes of the players get 3 points increase then the team starts getting 92-95 points on average per season, which further increases the chances of winning the EPL, it becomes almost assured.
I just wanted to demonstrate you how the game works, as you can see it isn't only about having the best tactic but also about having the best players. You can spend months on improving your tactic to improve the result by 1 point or you can increase 7 attributes of the players by 3 points and that would improve the result by about 30 points from 64 points to 94 points.
Also, look at the CA of the players in the Round 3, it's only about 150CA, which means it's still possible to get much better players with 160CA-180CA and further greatly improve the result but also, note that to have a solid chances of winning EPL it requires having at least 150CA players.
I hope this help.
Cheers.
Also, players managing the team manually should achieve a few more points.
Awesome efforts, thanks!
That's some cool findings ! @Zippo would it be possible to do a similar test without plugging in tactics ? and see how far you need to improve the team stats to win the league ?
Edit : Or maybe test using a similar 4-2-4 tactic that scored 58,56,54 on the testing table to see how much we need to upgrade players to be champions
MemorizableUsername said: Edit : Or maybe test using a similar 4-2-4 tactic that scored 58,56,54 on the testing table to see how much we need to upgrade players to be champions
I've done a similar test with this tactic - https://fm-arena.com/tactic/4210-poatan-451/
The same players were used to test both tactics.
Jamal Lowe was given Natural rating for CM position so it was possible to test both tactics with the same players.
There wasn't any player rotation. The same starting eleven were used to play all matches. The morale and conditions of the players were locked at 100%, which also was done for the AI teams.
The testing conditions were the same for both tests.
ROUND #1:
Default Attributes
In the table below the results have been translated into 38 matches
Average CA = 122
ROUND #2:
+2 Points to Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling
In the table below the results have been translated into 38 matches
Average CA = 142
ROUND #3:
+3 Points to Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling
In the table below the results have been translated into 38 matches
Average CA = 149
This has given me the idea that i need to change all my weighting in Genie scout now 😂
Also note, in FM-Arena testing the difference between "Poatan 451" tactic and "424 Alhamdulillah II 0.8" tactic is "18" points.
But in this test:
In the Round #1 the difference between tactics is "14" points.
In the Round #2 the difference between tactics is "9" points.
In the Round #3 the difference between tactics is "7" points.
The above result means that the stronger/weaker your team comparing with your opponents, the smaller role the tactic plays.
So testing tactics with a team that is much stronger or weaker than other teams in league isn't a good idea because such testing would be very ineffective.
Also, the result of this test shows that if you build a "Dream Team" with players like Mbappe, Messi, Neymar and similar best players then the quality of your tactic would become kinda irrelevant
Zippo said: Also note, in FM-Arena testing the difference between "Poatan 451" tactic and "424 Alhamdulillah II 0.8" tactic is "18" points.
But in this test:
In the Round #1 the difference between tactics is "14" points.
In the Round #2 the difference between tactics is "9" points.
In the Round #3 the difference between tactics is "7" points.
The above result means that the stronger/weaker your team comparing with your opponents, the smaller role the tactic plays.
So testing tactics with a team that is much stronger or weaker than other teams in league isn't a good idea because such testing would very ineffective.
Also, the result of this test shows that if you build a "Dream Team" with players like Mbappe, Messi, Neymar and similar best players then the quality of your tactic would become kinda irrelevant
Well that explains why PSG / Real Madrid has a really high chance of winning the Champions League on holiday !
What would you say the minimum those attributes would need to be @Zippo
In terms of the starting XI for Bournemouth for CA 149, do you know what the lowest attribute was at?
CBP87 said: What would you say the minimum those attributes would need to be @Zippo
In terms of the starting XI for Bournemouth for CA 149, do you know what the lowest attribute was at?
Could you elaborate? I don't understand your question.
Zippo said: Could you elaborate? I don't understand your question.
No worries, when you added +3 to these attributes, Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling. What was the lowest attribute value set at?
I'm just trying to work out if say the value of 12 in each of those attributes would be enough. I am looking to adapt my attribute filters to those attributes but Im looking to see what values will be needed
@Zippo I believe he is asking about what would the minimum attribute point between 1-20 would be for the selected attributes you mentioned in the OP
CBP87 said: No worries, when you added +3 to these attributes, Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling. What was the lowest attribute value set at?
I'm just trying to work out if say the value of 12 in each of those attributes would be enough. I am looking to adapt my attribute filters to those attributes but Im looking to see what values will be needed
Can you upload your attribute filters please?
CBP87 said: No worries, when you added +3 to these attributes, Acceleration, Agility, Pace, Anticipating, Concentration, Work Rate and Dribbling. What was the lowest attribute value set at?
I'm just trying to work out if say the value of 12 in each of those attributes would be enough. I am looking to adapt my attribute filters to those attributes but Im looking to see what values will be needed
The starting attributes were the default attributes as Bournemouth players have them at the start of the game.
So these are some figures I've just chucked together with the starting values of the Bournemouth starting XI from the Paotan 451
I would say at a minimum you need the attributes to be around 13/14
Cherknam said: Are these the most important stats for every position? Do I need to prioritise dribbling for CBs?
These were just the starting attribute values for Bournemouth and what they would've been with +3, I'd say you'd need to find a base value for all of the attributes
I think it's also worth testing a slight higher CA ( 160-180 )
Milakus said: I think it's worth testing a slight higher CA ( 160-180 )
Then you could probably just test with Manchester City or Liverpool.
has anyone made a training schedule to prioritise these attributes?
I'm sure adding "Finishing" attribute to the list would made the result even more impressive.
@Zippo When choosing the attributes why did you eliminate Jumping Reach, Balance, Finishing from your list when these scored higher than others in the attribute testing? Obviously JR and Finishing are quiet position specfic but balance is generic?
I'm just interested, I have been using GS with Marks file, but I want to eliminate GS use now, so I'm going to try and focus on the method you have used here
Middleweight165 said: @Zippo When choosing the attributes why did you eliminate Jumping Reach, Balance, Finishing from your list when these scored higher than others in the attribute testing? Obviously JR and Finishing are quiet position specfic but balance is generic?
I'm just interested, I have been using GS with Marks file, but I want to eliminate GS use now, so I'm going to try and focus on the method you have used here
Yes, you're right that Jumping Reach and Finishing are quite position specific attributes and that's why I decided not to include them in the list but Balance is generic and could be included.
The reason why I didn't include Balance is because I wanted to keep the attribute list as short as possible so that's why I didn't include it as many other attributes that could included. Of course, when you play the game in normal way then paying attention to other attributes would beneficial and that's what you should do.
Is there a way perhaps to try and moneyball this mother? So if we work on the basis of the table and maybe figure out a base of attributes that aren't important per position. So for example let's say a 50 rating of importance/weight per the YKYKYKY balanced genie scout ratings. If we give those attributes of 50 an in game value of say 10? This is based on managing in the Premier League. Could we then somehow get the evaluation of a player down to one single number through an equation. Going from attributes that are weighted 50 right through to 100+. Do you guys think this is possible? I read in another thread Mark had come up with RCAT or something?
Chriswin4 said: Is there a way perhaps to try and moneyball this mother? So if we work on the basis of the table and maybe figure out a base of attributes that aren't important per position. So for example let's say a 50 rating of importance/weight per the YKYKYKY balanced genie scout ratings. If we give those attributes of 50 an in game value of say 10? This is based on managing in the Premier League. Could we then somehow get the evaluation of a player down to one single number through an equation. Going from attributes that are weighted 50 right through to 100+. Do you guys think this is possible? I read in another thread Mark had come up with RCAT or something?
This is something I am interested in as well. Managing in the lower leagues its difficult to find good players, this project is too advanced for me though
@Zippo How do you think teams would compare with a same average CA but one with more points distributed in the key attributes and the other with a more even distribution and less points in the key attributes and both using the same tactics?
I'm using @Mark GS ratings to choose players but I'm wondering if I would be better using @ZaZ which I believe is more weighted to these key attributes
Where can I find Zaz's GS ratings?
I do have Mark's..
Middleweight165 said: @Zippo How do you think teams would compare with a same average CA but one with more points distributed in the key attributes and the other with a more even distribution and less points in the key attributes and both using the same tactics?
Hi. Sorry, I don't get what you mean.
Zippo said: Hi. Sorry, I don't get what you mean.
You compared a Bournemouth against higher average CA teams, Man City, Liverpool. I'm curious to know what you think would happen if you compared teams with the same CA but one of those teams eg Bournemouth like your test had a higher scores in the important attributes.
I'd like to know is it simply CA that is the defining factor or specifically those attributes. I think the tactic plays a huge role in you being able to compete against the bigger teams
Middleweight165 said: You compared a Bournemouth against higher average CA teams, Man City, Liverpool. I'm curious to know what you think would happen if you compared teams with the same CA but one of those teams eg Bournemouth like your test had a higher scores in the important attributes.
I'd like to know is it simply CA that is the defining factor or specifically those attributes. I think the tactic plays a huge role in you being able to compete against the bigger teams
If I correctly understand what you're talking about then I suggest you to check this test - https://fm-arena.com/thread/5351-should-you-follow-the-highlighted-attributes-of-the-roles/
In that test the CA of every player stayed the same and only what were chaining is their attributes, speaking other words, the CA was re-distributed from the highlighted attributes of Roles/Duties to Acceleration and Pace. And if you look at the result of that test then you'll that the general level of CA isn't what determines the result and the distribution of CA is much more important.
Zippo said: If I correctly understand what you're talking about then I suggest you to check this test - https://fm-arena.com/thread/5351-should-you-follow-the-highlighted-attributes-of-the-roles/
In that test the CA of every player stayed the same and only what were chaining is their attributes, speaking other words, the CA was re-distributed from the highlighted attributes of Roles/Duties to Acceleration and Pace. And if you look at the result of that test then you'll that the general level of CA isn't what determines the result and the distribution of CA is much more important.
Yeah thats great thanks