Note that this has nothing to do with your claim that stamina is the most important attribute for fullbacks. You remind me of those insufferable 3rd worlders living in slums under despots who look at the George Floyd debacle and reiterate with a mischievous grin 'See, I told you America is collapsing!'. Expand
😂😂. Most important? I never said that. If you have to tell lies, whilst spewing out this other crap, it shows how badly you handle any criticism and how desperate you are to be loved by strangers online. I said it was more important than several other attributes you'd listed and hadn't mentioned stamina. You replied saying it wasn't. Now you've discovered it's important overall? We knew this years ago. Show me where I did l said it was the most important you liar.
Your replies are hilarious. Attributes are speed, jumping each, dribbling and then stamina. Again we knew the years ago. Then you have anticipation. You can't be seriously working this out in 2026 when we knew this in 2023.
If you were any good at this you'd be working out which attributes were more important by position, rather than just which attributes are important. The tests you did on players was funny as well. Goncalo Ramos?? Honestly concentrate on your school work. You've probably got your exams next year.
Ps I also don't remember dribbling being hard to find. It's one of the best attacking attributes, after speed of course if you were thinking about telling more lies saying I said it's the most important.
So it turns out the GK does matter quite a bit. The most surprising finding is that technique 13 > 8 results in going from 6th to relegation, though that is with my knife-edge 15 pace/acc roster of outfield players. Both pace & acc also turn out to be fairly important.
A fair number of the attributes result in 1-2 places position drop if you go from 13/14 > 8, so I think in general you want the GK to be reasonably well-rounded.
Behold, the ultimate goalkeeper:
With this GK, the team finished 3rd, 5th, 4th, 1st.
BTW, I don't keep track of this, but I know that I've simulated at least over 10,000 real Premier Leagues matches in full detail now with these 15 pace/acc templates and coming ~4th-5th ~80-90%+ of the time.
Now I know some genuinely care about the accuracy question rather than just looking for any god-of-the-gaps excuse for SI's lies and imbecility. For these people, I have two things to say:
1) Yes, the points total even for a full season varies greatly, but the final position is much more stable. So my 15 pace/acc team might get 57 points or 81 points, but its position ~8 times out of 10 will be 3th-6th. Occasionally it will be 2nd or 8th or 10th. Rarely it will be 1st or 12th say.
2) Think about it deductively. If the RNG was so powerful that you couldn't tell reliably whether a team would come 1st or 10th in one season of samples, then you would have a fair chance every season of Liverpool coming 10th and not even qualifying for a cup spot. Ok, sometimes this does happen in the game, but let's be real, it's pretty rare.
I have a hypothesis as to why position is more stable than points. Rather than RNG causing the difference between the two, I would suspect it could be weather. Or some factor(s) other than just RNG, because the strange thing is that it must effect most or all teams equally, since the positions remain pretty stable, and I highly doubt that the game is looking at one team's 1-0 result and determining that the other game must end 2-0 to line the positions up at the end of the season.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: So it turns out the GK does matter quite a bit. The most surprising finding is that technique 13 > 8 results in going from 6th to relegation, though that is with my knife-edge 15 pace/acc roster of outfield players. Both pace & acc also turn out to be fairly important.
A fair number of the attributes result in 1-2 places position drop if you go from 13/14 > 8, so I think in general you want the GK to be reasonably well-rounded.
Behold, the ultimate goalkeeper:
With this GK, the team finished 3rd, 5th, 4th, 1st.
BTW, I don't keep track of this, but I know that I've simulated at least over 10,000 real Premier Leagues matches in full detail now with these 15 pace/acc templates and coming ~4th-5th ~80-90%+ of the time.
Now I know some genuinely care about the accuracy question rather than just looking for any god-of-the-gaps excuse for SI's lies and imbecility. For these people, I have two things to say:
1) Yes, the points total even for a full season varies greatly, but the final position is much more stable. So my 15 pace/acc team might get 57 points or 81 points, but its position ~8 times out of 10 will be 3th-6th. Occasionally it will be 2nd or 8th or 10th. Rarely it will be 1st or 12th say.
2) Think about it deductively. If the RNG was so powerful that you couldn't tell reliably whether a team would come 1st or 10th in one season of samples, then you would have a fair chance every season of Liverpool coming 10th and not even qualifying for a cup spot. Ok, sometimes this does happen in the game, but let's be real, it's pretty rare.
I have a hypothesis as to why position is more stable than points. Rather than RNG causing the difference between the two, I would suspect it could be weather. Or some factor(s) other than just RNG, because the strange thing is that it must effect most or all teams equally, since the positions remain pretty stable, and I highly doubt that the game is looking at one team's 1-0 result and determining that the other game must end 2-0 to line the positions up at the end of the season. Expand
Based on this are you going to be changing GK weights drastically or mostly just technique?
Rain said: Based on this are you going to be changing GK weights drastically or mostly just technique? Expand Drastic changes I reckon
You can use chatgpt to calculate the new weights already. Important hiddens are same as outfield: Consistency, Important Matches, Professionalism, Pressure 13.
I haven't done it myself yet because I haven't finished completely yet. I haven't actually tested Agility & Reflexes individually yet for example, but I think there's probably only some minor changes to go.
I thought it would be amusing to give a jarring illustration of something that is possible that I learned from my 1 CA testing
Unfortunately I couldn't quite finish the season before getting sacked, but here you can see I was 8th with 4 games to go (Man City):
The conditions were:
All fullbacks - 1 stamina All wingers - 1 pace All strikers - 1 finishing All defensive midfielders - 1 passing All centrebacks - 1 tackling All goalkeepers - 1 handling
All players - No other changes from my 15 pace/acc template
Example player (AML/AMR):
There's something useful in this. For some attributes you only need 1 or 2 guys to do the job (i.e. finishing, jumping reach), whereas others need to be on everyone (i.e. pace, acc). However there also seems to be some built-in leeway for at least 1 missing player, even for pace/acc. My guess is that this is to cope with the red card system. The takeaway here is that the 15 pace/acc template will be brittle, yes, but even if you skirt it fine you can still afford to have one player that has say 13 instead of 15 pace, and another who has 5 stamina instead of 13.
Keepers are the least important position in FM24 over a season. However in a single game they can make the difference. Once you reach a certain level with your team, challenging for the biggest trophies, your keeper can be the difference in a semi or final for example. Maybe this is also true in relegation scrap, but I don't have any experience of those.
Let's say Haaland is 99.99%(he should be) using genie scout and your team was 80%. You don't want any positions to be too far behind. Having ten players at 80% and then one at 70% is going to hold you back. Sometimes that 70% player might have a stellar season, but they won't repeat it every year. They will need to be upgraded. The same goes for keeper. But if you had the choice between a 85% outfield player or 85% keeper, and you keeper was already the same as your outfield players, you choose the outfield player every time. Caveat being maybe if he had high important matches and pressure he could win you a final. Even more if your keeper is lacking that and you're trying to win the biggest competitions. Overall you'd still be better off with the 85% outfield player.
The game isn't that complicated and although a lot of people make the mistake of applying real life logic, in some cases, such as you should try to upgrade your worst position are true. Although teams irl will probably still buy a top DM over a full back. But full backs can be really strong in FM, so that's where the real life logic goes out the window a bit.
Anyway I'm sure Lockjaw will disagree with most of that.
Not sure I agree with that broad statement that GK is the least important position. Issue is mostly with the way these attribute tests are done. For outfield players it's usually the whole team change and for goalkeepers it's a single player. To put it another way outfield you are testing the change on 10 players at once vs goalkeeper only 1 player.
keithb said: Keepers are the least important position in FM24 over a season. Expand It's one thing for you to have incorrectly assumed that stamina on fullbacks is crucial for success. Since you never did any testing yourself, it was a fair and widely held assumption to bet your dignity on. You couldn't have known my finding in advance that both DL/DR with 1 stamina (along with a bunch of serious shortfalls in other positions) results in coming 8th (instead of 4th-5th).
But this time you're making an assertion after it's shown to be wrong. In a team where both wingers have 1 pace, and fullbacks have 1 stamina, the team finishes 8th. In a team where just the goalkeeper has technique '8' instead of '13', the team goes from 6th to relegated. And although I did not mention this, I actually switched from aerial reach to handling for my reduced team attribute, because aerial reach 13 > 1 resulted in 15th.
I have more data to pull from. When the 15 pace/acc team was normal, and the GK lacked 4 key stats (that weren't the big three of aer/ref/agil), the result was 12th. When just the single attribute of GK acceleration was low ('8' ), the result was 9th - and that was with boosts to many other GK attributes that I later deemed superfluous.
Yarema said: Not sure I agree with that broad statement that GK is the least important position. Issue is mostly with the way these attribute tests are done. For outfield players it's usually the whole team change and for goalkeepers it's a single player. To put it another way outfield you are testing the change on 10 players at once vs goalkeeper only 1 player. Expand
People can have a different view that's fine. It's not an exact thing and I tried to include some nuance. FM is mainly about scoring goals rather than keeping clean sheets. But some have won the league with a lot of 1-0's or 2-1's so if that's your play style then maybe keepers are more important. I've won champions league finals because my keeper has been my best player. But overall I'd still rather a better ten outfield players.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: It's one thing for you to have incorrectly assumed that stamina on fullbacks is crucial for success. Since you never did any testing yourself, it was a fair and widely held assumption to bet your dignity on. You couldn't have known my finding in advance that both DL/DR with 1 stamina (along with a bunch of serious shortfalls in other positions) results in coming 8th (instead of 4th-5th).
But this time you're making an assertion after it's shown to be wrong. In a team where both wingers have 1 pace, and fullbacks have 1 stamina, the team finishes 8th. In a team where just the goalkeeper has technique '8' instead of '13', the team goes from 6th to relegated. And although I did not mention this, I actually switched from aerial reach to handling for my reduced team attribute, because aerial reach 13 > 1 resulted in 15th.
I have more data to pull from. When the 15 pace/acc team was normal, and the GK lacked 4 key stats (that weren't the big three of aer/ref/agil), the result was 12th. When just the single attribute of GK acceleration was low ('8' ), the result was 9th - and that was with boosts to many other GK attributes that I later deemed superfluous. Expand
Oh Lockjaw. You haven't shown anything to make me wrong. Your methodology is crap. There's nothing useful in those tests. You are someone who didn't even have Haaland as the best striker at one point? How can your testing be taken seriously. The 1ca tests are interesting but they aren't conclusive. We can now run teams and wingers can have 1 pace?
Weeks ago you said stamina didn't matter, or words to that affect, and then more recently you said it did. Which is it? It's also obvious why stamina is useful, what happens if your team has low stamina and why certain positions need it more than others. You running some half baked tests isn't conclusive. As I've said multiple times already you aren't a good tester. Most of your work is just other people's you've redone. Bravo.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: There's something useful in this. For some attributes you only need 1 or 2 guys to do the job (i.e. finishing, jumping reach), whereas others need to be on everyone (i.e. pace, acc). Expand
Surely this is bait?? You cant seriously be coming to these conclusions now? You reckon some positions need certain attributes more than others? And that speed is every player? Im in the Matrix.
keithb said: Surely this is bait?? You cant seriously be coming to these conclusions now? You reckon some positions need certain attributes more than others? And that speed is every player? Im in the Matrix. Expand
Instead of b*tching why don't you post your own testing results?
Rain said: Instead of b*tching why don't you post your own testing results? Expand
Hi and many thanks for your interaction. I don't need to do my own testing when others have done it for me. Harvest green and the testing done by FM arena is good and reliable. It won't be 100% accurate but it seems as close as we might get. Having played FM24 too much and using their results to shape my ratings for genie scout, it's not hard to work out they are highly accurate. To make the game harder I would use a tactic that was rated approximately 10 points lower than the highest one by knapp. The game was still too easy. I can offer you some tips: dribbling is important for wingers, the sun is hot, anticipation is an attribute that is useful all over the pitch but slightly more so strikers, the sea is wet, your defenders should prioritise pace over acceleration slightly, you need to breath air to live, people still undervalue jumping reach it's the third highest point scorer on fm arena testing.
Lockjaw a page or two back claimed tactics are more important than attributes. Another howler. But not a surprise. This is the same person who didn't have Haaland as the best player in the game. How is that possible??? There's something very wrong there. But if you wish to follow this you are free to do so.
Again many thanks for your interaction and I looked forward to the next one.
keithb said: Hi and many thanks for your interaction. I don't need to do my own testing when others have done it for me. Harvest green and the testing done by FM arena is good and reliable. It won't be 100% accurate but it seems as close as we might get. Having played FM24 too much and using their results to shape my ratings for genie scout, it's not hard to work out they are highly accurate. To make the game harder I would use a tactic that was rated approximately 10 points lower than the highest one by knapp. The game was still too easy. I can offer you some tips: dribbling is important for wingers, the sun is hot, anticipation is an attribute that is useful all over the pitch but slightly more so strikers, the sea is wet, your defenders should prioritise pace over acceleration slightly, you need to breath air to live, people still undervalue jumping reach it's the third highest point scorer on fm arena testing.
Lockjaw a page or two back claimed tactics are more important than attributes. Another howler. But not a surprise. This is the same person who didn't have Haaland as the best player in the game. How is that possible??? There's something very wrong there. But if you wish to follow this you are free to do so.
Again many thanks for your interaction and I looked forward to the next one. Expand
It's not that deep man you're on a forum trying to find better ways to cheat an already easy single player game like you said. If you don't agree just move on don't waste your time.
If I run the same tactic five times with Burnley, sometimes it will end 3rd place, sometimes 12th, and sometimes it will have awful results that make me even check if I loaded the right tactic before the test. What I mean is that a single league test is definitely not enough to prove anything, and even two or three would still not be reliable enough to draw any conclusions.
Other than that, the fact that table position have less variance than points in the table do not mean much. The table goes from 1st to 20th, while points go from 0 to 114. Realistically, the same experiment ran multiple times could variate position between 6 different positions, while points in the table would naturally variate 30 or so. They are simply different ranges, but the position in table depends much more from performance of other teams against each other, while points in the table depends mostly of your performance against each of them.
Rain said: It's not that deep man you're on a forum trying to find better ways to cheat an already easy single player game like you said. If you don't agree just move on don't waste your time. Expand
It's a single player game and anyone can play it in any way they like. Sometimes I wanted to see how badly I could "cheat the game" and others I was happier to play slowly with my own tactics and only buying players recommended from my scouts. I also used python which I thought was far superior to genie scout. Setting a level 7 for speed.
If I feel someone is misleading others then I will say something. Or like a few years ago when someone was clearly bullying others on the forum I spoke up. Lockjaw probably loves free speech and he loves people sticking it to people and organisations. So I'm just joining in.
Anyone not finding Haaland isn't by far the best player in the game and declaring "Tactic is actually somewhat more important than attributes." Needs to really ask themselves how they got it so wrong. It shows unreliable testing methods and a poor understanding of methodology, or just testing in general. If that person also has a fragile personality they will just crack on regardless and take no notice, as they couldn't possibly be wrong. As we endlessly see.
keithb said: It's a single player game and anyone can play it in any way they like. Sometimes I wanted to see how badly I could "cheat the game" and others I was happier to play slowly with my own tactics and only buying players recommended from my scouts. I also used python which I thought was far superior to genie scout. Setting a level 7 for speed.
If I feel someone is misleading others then I will say something. Or like a few years ago when someone was clearly bullying others on the forum I spoke up. Lockjaw probably loves free speech and he loves people sticking it to people and organisations. So I'm just joining in.
Anyone not finding Haaland isn't by far the best player in the game and declaring "Tactic is actually somewhat more important than attributes." Needs to really ask themselves how they got it so wrong. It shows unreliable testing methods and a poor understanding of methodology, or just testing in general. If that person also has a fragile personality they will just crack on regardless and take no notice, as they couldn't possibly be wrong. As we endlessly see.
Take it easy Expand
I did a test with Haaland edited to play as AMC in Burnley, using Autumn. He was scoring over two goals per match.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yeah I have the same issue, I didn't even realize before because I used FM24 legacy role only. If you can apply the FM24 legacy roles to your import, then it should make no difference. Expand
And if I can´t apply? What if I have roles in my tactic in FM26 that didn't exist in FM24 (e.g. overlapping centre back)?
keithb said: Hi and many thanks for your interaction. I don't need to do my own testing when others have done it for me. Harvest green and the testing done by FM arena is good and reliable. Expand Where are HarvestGreen's weights? I found his latest Goalkeeper weights in an untranslated spreadsheet but could only find multi-step formulae for outfield attributes that involve doing different things if attributes are between thresholds.
keithb said: FM is mainly about scoring goals rather than keeping clean sheets. But some have won the league with a lot of 1-0's or 2-1's so if that's your play style then maybe keepers are more important. Expand I was going to add, but decided in the end not to, that you seem to to believe that GK only contributes to goals prevented rather than goals scored. The reason I decided not to is because I had a brief look at the past results to find evidence to disprove this, but realized it would just take too much time to collate all the necessary information to present it neatly. But my impression just from having running the tests and seeing the results, is that GK doesn't just prevent goals, better GK results in more team goals scored. This is more clearly demonstrated/known with better defenders resulting in more goals/wins.
keithb said: You are someone who didn't even have Haaland as the best striker at one point? How can your testing be taken seriously.
Weeks ago you said stamina didn't matter, or words to that affect, and then more recently you said it did. Which is it? It's also obvious why stamina is useful, what happens if your team has low stamina and why certain positions need it more than others.
Most of your work is just other people's you've redone. Bravo. Expand So you're saying I should make your confirmation bias a prerequisite of my testing?
My testing can be taken seriously because I'm running them in the real league on full detail with players that have realistically attainable attributes, with cumulatively thousands of samples not on every attribute precisely but the basic picture. So I can say with certainty that a team of 1 CA players can win the Premier League, and that a team of 15 pace/acc players can also win the Premier League (4th/5th most typically though), but when I found in my 1 CA testing that concentration only mattered for DC/DL/DR that turned out to be wrong - or perhaps it only applied to that 1 CA limitation. Stamina also did not matter for those 1 CA players, and according to HarvestGreen stamina is one of the least important physical attributes - less important than agility he finds.
It is telling that you think changing your mind is a sign of weakness. What the data is showing is actually that there perhaps aren't any outfield positional differences. I think what is going on with stamina is that it affects the decay rate of pace/acc over a match. So in my 1 CA tests where players have 17-20 pace/acc, low stamina is insignificant because pace/acc is from a high starting point to begin with. This would also therefore be true once you have your 18+ pace/acc players in game. For this 15 pace/acc where we are hitting the lower threshold of the pace/acc requirement, stamina is necessary to make up for its shortfall towards the end of the match. I have done another test earlier where 14 pace/acc/sta comes 8th, so it does appear to work this way. What this means is that in any case, stamina is less important than pace/acc in any position including fullbacks, and one would guess that 20 stamina = 4 pace or acc, so 20% of pace/acc. This happens to align neatly with HarvestGreen's finding of 21.7%.
As far as I'm aware, no one else is doing the kind of testing I'm doing, which is using the real league in situ. Everybody else seems to be doing carefully controlled custom leagues where every player has 10 attributes or whatnot, and even making morale and such identical. I've been influenced to take my approach from previous experience, where I couldn't work out the newgen factors based on isolation tests, so I ended up simply testing the median PA for every single playable club in Football Manager. And from those results it turned out that there is a hidden factor I couldn't have found in my isolation tests and why I could never get my formula to work properly. The great thing about this method is that there's no question of 'yes, but will this work in the Premier League?' - it simply does.
ZaZ said: If I run the same tactic five times with Burnley, sometimes it will end 3rd place, sometimes 12th, and sometimes it will have awful results that make me even check if I loaded the right tactic before the test. What I mean is that a single league test is definitely not enough to prove anything, and even two or three would still not be reliable enough to draw any conclusions.
Other than that, the fact that table position have less variance than points in the table do not mean much. The table goes from 1st to 20th, while points go from 0 to 114. Realistically, the same experiment ran multiple times could variate position between 6 different positions, while points in the table would naturally variate 30 or so. They are simply different ranges, but the position in table depends much more from performance of other teams against each other, while points in the table depends mostly of your performance against each of them. Expand My observations are:
1) Certain attributes seem to have more result variability than others. For instance, important matches 13 > 8 results in say 4th, 12th, 4th, 12th instead of the typical 4th, 5th, 5th, 8th, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 10th.
2) Say my team comes 2nd almost every test. Liverpool gets 68 points, I get 66 points. I get 88 points, Liverpool gets 91 points. Liverpool gets 76 points, I get 71 points. I'm not sure how this gels with your idea of how it works, but if it was just 2 sets of randomness, why would two team's points track each other like this? In any case, I don't know on this one, all I want to assert is that table position is an adequately reliable measure. Even if you're correct in that it's just as random, but the scale is smaller so it doesn't show, then for all intents & purposes it still works - the RNG does not overwhelm the predictability of table position. Not that I mean to be dismissive of your theory, I actually think it's somewhat important to get to why it works like this and I'm open to ideas on it.
2) The typical position variability for me is less than you have observed. Maybe it's the tactic, maybe it's the unevenness of players, and so on. Now unfortunately I don't save my dud results, so I can't really present data on this. But based on my saved successes, and recollections of duds, I reckon it will be in the range ~3rd-8th ~80-90% of the time. But I've done a test of this below to determine the truth.
So I did 10 one-season tests of 14 pace/acc/stamina + new GK template since I want more samples on both of those anyway:
8th 4th 3rd 9th (sacked after 14 games) 8th 2nd 13th (sacked after 15 games) 6th (sacked after 36 games) 10th (sacked after 20 games) 6th
So 7/10 times (I'm going to count 6th sacked after 36 games) the team did 8th or better. The mode was 6th or 8th. The median was 7th. The average was 7th (6.9).
And that's assuming those early sackings wouldn't have led to higher results later if not sacked. If I were summing up these results, I'd say 14 pace/acc/sta does ~6th-8th.
It's telling that someone has to make things up and lie. I never said the most important attribute for a full back was stamina. I never said changing your mind was a sign of weakness. I did say stamina is an important attribute for DM's and full backs. I also said if you have carried out tests and not found Haaland to be the best in the game by some way, there is something wrong with your testing. If you fail to understand this then what else is there to discuss. Alongside unreliable testing methods I think you have a poor understanding of the game itself. I say this as you don't seem to grasp how good Haaland is. How superior.
Anyway if we look back multiple versions of football manager yes we knew that better defenders meant we scored more goals. Glad you've discovered this in 2026. It doesn't mean a goalkeeper is more important than outfield players. Again we all know if your players have 20/20 speed then every other attribute matters less. Because we have known for a long time that speed is so overpowered. We use the squad planner to see where we need to improve and roughly where we should finish with the highest and average.
A few pages back we have "Tactic is actually somewhat more important than attribute". Can't take anyone saying that seriously. I hope you change your mind on that as it's incorrect. It's more than reasonable for me and many others to believe that a lot of your testing has lead to incorrect results. I have given you some cast iron examples.
At least you were on the right track why stamina matters. You didn't quite join all the dots, but you weren't that far off. There's a part of me that thinks this whole thing is a cry for help. So I'll probably leave it there and let you carry on. But if it is then you should talk to someone.
ZaZ said: I did a test with Haaland edited to play as AMC in Burnley, using Autumn. He was scoring over two goals per match. Expand
Obviously he's a physical monster. But what else do you think makes him so superior? In FM 23/24 I had him score 100 a season. Never had anything like it before or after him in a save.
keithb said: Obviously he's a physical monster. But what else do you think makes him so superior? In FM 23/24 I had him score 100 a season. Never had anything like it before or after him in a save. Expand
I have no clue what he has better that is much better than other elite games, unless "gets the crowd going" makes him score more goals.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I was going to add, but decided in the end not to, that you seem to to believe that GK only contributes to goals prevented rather than goals scored. The reason I decided not to is because I had a brief look at the past results to find evidence to disprove this, but realized it would just take too much time to collate all the necessary information to present it neatly. But my impression just from having running the tests and seeing the results, is that GK doesn't just prevent goals, better GK results in more team goals scored. This is more clearly demonstrated/known with better defenders resulting in more goals/wins.
So you're saying I should make your confirmation bias a prerequisite of my testing?
My testing can be taken seriously because I'm running them in the real league on full detail with players that have realistically attainable attributes, with cumulatively thousands of samples not on every attribute precisely but the basic picture. So I can say with certainty that a team of 1 CA players can win the Premier League, and that a team of 15 pace/acc players can also win the Premier League (4th/5th most typically though), but when I found in my 1 CA testing that concentration only mattered for DC/DL/DR that turned out to be wrong - or perhaps it only applied to that 1 CA limitation. Stamina also did not matter for those 1 CA players, and according to HarvestGreen stamina is one of the least important physical attributes - less important than agility he finds.
It is telling that you think changing your mind is a sign of weakness. What the data is showing is actually that there perhaps aren't any outfield positional differences. I think what is going on with stamina is that it affects the decay rate of pace/acc over a match. So in my 1 CA tests where players have 17-20 pace/acc, low stamina is insignificant because pace/acc is from a high starting point to begin with. This would also therefore be true once you have your 18+ pace/acc players in game. For this 15 pace/acc where we are hitting the lower threshold of the pace/acc requirement, stamina is necessary to make up for its shortfall towards the end of the match. I have done another test earlier where 14 pace/acc/sta comes 8th, so it does appear to work this way. What this means is that in any case, stamina is less important than pace/acc in any position including fullbacks, and one would guess that 20 stamina = 4 pace or acc, so 20% of pace/acc. This happens to align neatly with HarvestGreen's finding of 21.7%.
As far as I'm aware, no one else is doing the kind of testing I'm doing, which is using the real league in situ. Everybody else seems to be doing carefully controlled custom leagues where every player has 10 attributes or whatnot, and even making morale and such identical. I've been influenced to take my approach from previous experience, where I couldn't work out the newgen factors based on isolation tests, so I ended up simply testing the median PA for every single playable club in Football Manager. And from those results it turned out that there is a hidden factor I couldn't have found in my isolation tests and why I could never get my formula to work properly. The great thing about this method is that there's no question of 'yes, but will this work in the Premier League?' - it simply does.
My observations are:
1) Certain attributes seem to have more result variability than others. For instance, important matches 13 > 8 results in say 4th, 12th, 4th, 12th instead of the typical 4th, 5th, 5th, 8th, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 10th.
2) Say my team comes 2nd almost every test. Liverpool gets 68 points, I get 66 points. I get 88 points, Liverpool gets 91 points. Liverpool gets 76 points, I get 71 points. I'm not sure how this gels with your idea of how it works, but if it was just 2 sets of randomness, why would two team's points track each other like this? In any case, I don't know on this one, all I want to assert is that table position is an adequately reliable measure. Even if you're correct in that it's just as random, but the scale is smaller so it doesn't show, then for all intents & purposes it still works - the RNG does not overwhelm the predictability of table position. Not that I mean to be dismissive of your theory, I actually think it's somewhat important to get to why it works like this and I'm open to ideas on it.
2) The typical position variability for me is less than you have observed. Maybe it's the tactic, maybe it's the unevenness of players, and so on. Now unfortunately I don't save my dud results, so I can't really present data on this. But based on my saved successes, and recollections of duds, I reckon it will be in the range ~3rd-8th ~80-90% of the time. But I've done a test of this below to determine the truth.
So I did 10 one-season tests of 14 pace/acc/stamina + new GK template since I want more samples on both of those anyway:
8th 4th 3rd 9th (sacked after 14 games) 8th 2nd 13th (sacked after 15 games) 6th (sacked after 36 games) 10th (sacked after 20 games) 6th
So 7/10 times (I'm going to count 6th sacked after 36 games) the team did 8th or better. The mode was 6th or 8th. The median was 7th. The average was 7th (6.9).
And that's assuming those early sackings wouldn't have led to higher results later if not sacked. If I were summing up these results, I'd say 14 pace/acc/sta does ~6th-8th. Expand
There are many ways to avoid the variance in tests. You could perform statistical tests, use stuff like medians instead of averages, or try simple solutions like "Do ten tests, discard the three best and three worst results, and average the middle four". Those techniques are made to avoid outliers.
ZaZ said: I have no clue what he has better that is much better than other elite games, unless "gets the crowd going" makes him score more goals. Expand
He challenges for more headers and wins most, he takes more shots and scores a lot more goals. He has high anticipation and other attributes that matter. But there is definitely something else about him. Maybe its a combination of all that and/or his hidden attributes. I might have had a guy in a save who was 20/20 speed with also average jumping reach that came close, but then the game was easier so its hard to compare them.
LightningFlik said: Where are HarvestGreen's weights? I found his latest Goalkeeper weights in an untranslated spreadsheet but could only find multi-step formulae for outfield attributes that involve doing different things if attributes are between thresholds. Expand
Weights for genie scout? I dont think he did any. But they aren't hard to work out apart from keeper. You definitely shouldn't be giving every position the same weights though.
i like all testing and ideas but just looking at 4 attributes allowed me to win the league with burnley med pred 18, everyone over 14 pace/accel central mids jumping and dribbling above 11, central defs jumping at least 14
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said:
Note that this has nothing to do with your claim that stamina is the most important attribute for fullbacks. You remind me of those insufferable 3rd worlders living in slums under despots who look at the George Floyd debacle and reiterate with a mischievous grin 'See, I told you America is collapsing!'.
😂😂. Most important? I never said that. If you have to tell lies, whilst spewing out this other crap, it shows how badly you handle any criticism and how desperate you are to be loved by strangers online. I said it was more important than several other attributes you'd listed and hadn't mentioned stamina. You replied saying it wasn't. Now you've discovered it's important overall? We knew this years ago. Show me where I did l said it was the most important you liar.
Your replies are hilarious. Attributes are speed, jumping each, dribbling and then stamina. Again we knew the years ago. Then you have anticipation. You can't be seriously working this out in 2026 when we knew this in 2023.
If you were any good at this you'd be working out which attributes were more important by position, rather than just which attributes are important. The tests you did on players was funny as well. Goncalo Ramos?? Honestly concentrate on your school work. You've probably got your exams next year.
Ps I also don't remember dribbling being hard to find. It's one of the best attacking attributes, after speed of course if you were thinking about telling more lies saying I said it's the most important.
So it turns out the GK does matter quite a bit. The most surprising finding is that technique 13 > 8 results in going from 6th to relegation, though that is with my knife-edge 15 pace/acc roster of outfield players. Both pace & acc also turn out to be fairly important.
A fair number of the attributes result in 1-2 places position drop if you go from 13/14 > 8, so I think in general you want the GK to be reasonably well-rounded.
Behold, the ultimate goalkeeper:
With this GK, the team finished 3rd, 5th, 4th, 1st.
BTW, I don't keep track of this, but I know that I've simulated at least over 10,000 real Premier Leagues matches in full detail now with these 15 pace/acc templates and coming ~4th-5th ~80-90%+ of the time.
Now I know some genuinely care about the accuracy question rather than just looking for any god-of-the-gaps excuse for SI's lies and imbecility. For these people, I have two things to say:
1) Yes, the points total even for a full season varies greatly, but the final position is much more stable. So my 15 pace/acc team might get 57 points or 81 points, but its position ~8 times out of 10 will be 3th-6th. Occasionally it will be 2nd or 8th or 10th. Rarely it will be 1st or 12th say.
2) Think about it deductively. If the RNG was so powerful that you couldn't tell reliably whether a team would come 1st or 10th in one season of samples, then you would have a fair chance every season of Liverpool coming 10th and not even qualifying for a cup spot. Ok, sometimes this does happen in the game, but let's be real, it's pretty rare.
I have a hypothesis as to why position is more stable than points. Rather than RNG causing the difference between the two, I would suspect it could be weather. Or some factor(s) other than just RNG, because the strange thing is that it must effect most or all teams equally, since the positions remain pretty stable, and I highly doubt that the game is looking at one team's 1-0 result and determining that the other game must end 2-0 to line the positions up at the end of the season.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: So it turns out the GK does matter quite a bit. The most surprising finding is that technique 13 > 8 results in going from 6th to relegation, though that is with my knife-edge 15 pace/acc roster of outfield players. Both pace & acc also turn out to be fairly important.
A fair number of the attributes result in 1-2 places position drop if you go from 13/14 > 8, so I think in general you want the GK to be reasonably well-rounded.
Behold, the ultimate goalkeeper:
With this GK, the team finished 3rd, 5th, 4th, 1st.
BTW, I don't keep track of this, but I know that I've simulated at least over 10,000 real Premier Leagues matches in full detail now with these 15 pace/acc templates and coming ~4th-5th ~80-90%+ of the time.
Now I know some genuinely care about the accuracy question rather than just looking for any god-of-the-gaps excuse for SI's lies and imbecility. For these people, I have two things to say:
1) Yes, the points total even for a full season varies greatly, but the final position is much more stable. So my 15 pace/acc team might get 57 points or 81 points, but its position ~8 times out of 10 will be 3th-6th. Occasionally it will be 2nd or 8th or 10th. Rarely it will be 1st or 12th say.
2) Think about it deductively. If the RNG was so powerful that you couldn't tell reliably whether a team would come 1st or 10th in one season of samples, then you would have a fair chance every season of Liverpool coming 10th and not even qualifying for a cup spot. Ok, sometimes this does happen in the game, but let's be real, it's pretty rare.
I have a hypothesis as to why position is more stable than points. Rather than RNG causing the difference between the two, I would suspect it could be weather. Or some factor(s) other than just RNG, because the strange thing is that it must effect most or all teams equally, since the positions remain pretty stable, and I highly doubt that the game is looking at one team's 1-0 result and determining that the other game must end 2-0 to line the positions up at the end of the season.
Based on this are you going to be changing GK weights drastically or mostly just technique?
Rain said: Based on this are you going to be changing GK weights drastically or mostly just technique?
Drastic changes I reckon
You can use chatgpt to calculate the new weights already. Important hiddens are same as outfield: Consistency, Important Matches, Professionalism, Pressure 13.
I haven't done it myself yet because I haven't finished completely yet. I haven't actually tested Agility & Reflexes individually yet for example, but I think there's probably only some minor changes to go.
I thought it would be amusing to give a jarring illustration of something that is possible that I learned from my 1 CA testing
Unfortunately I couldn't quite finish the season before getting sacked, but here you can see I was 8th with 4 games to go (Man City):
The conditions were:
All fullbacks - 1 stamina
All wingers - 1 pace
All strikers - 1 finishing
All defensive midfielders - 1 passing
All centrebacks - 1 tackling
All goalkeepers - 1 handling
All players - No other changes from my 15 pace/acc template
Example player (AML/AMR):
There's something useful in this. For some attributes you only need 1 or 2 guys to do the job (i.e. finishing, jumping reach), whereas others need to be on everyone (i.e. pace, acc). However there also seems to be some built-in leeway for at least 1 missing player, even for pace/acc. My guess is that this is to cope with the red card system. The takeaway here is that the 15 pace/acc template will be brittle, yes, but even if you skirt it fine you can still afford to have one player that has say 13 instead of 15 pace, and another who has 5 stamina instead of 13.
Keepers are the least important position in FM24 over a season. However in a single game they can make the difference. Once you reach a certain level with your team, challenging for the biggest trophies, your keeper can be the difference in a semi or final for example. Maybe this is also true in relegation scrap, but I don't have any experience of those.
Let's say Haaland is 99.99%(he should be) using genie scout and your team was 80%. You don't want any positions to be too far behind. Having ten players at 80% and then one at 70% is going to hold you back. Sometimes that 70% player might have a stellar season, but they won't repeat it every year. They will need to be upgraded. The same goes for keeper. But if you had the choice between a 85% outfield player or 85% keeper, and you keeper was already the same as your outfield players, you choose the outfield player every time. Caveat being maybe if he had high important matches and pressure he could win you a final. Even more if your keeper is lacking that and you're trying to win the biggest competitions. Overall you'd still be better off with the 85% outfield player.
The game isn't that complicated and although a lot of people make the mistake of applying real life logic, in some cases, such as you should try to upgrade your worst position are true. Although teams irl will probably still buy a top DM over a full back. But full backs can be really strong in FM, so that's where the real life logic goes out the window a bit.
Anyway I'm sure Lockjaw will disagree with most of that.
Not sure I agree with that broad statement that GK is the least important position. Issue is mostly with the way these attribute tests are done. For outfield players it's usually the whole team change and for goalkeepers it's a single player. To put it another way outfield you are testing the change on 10 players at once vs goalkeeper only 1 player.
keithb said: Keepers are the least important position in FM24 over a season.
It's one thing for you to have incorrectly assumed that stamina on fullbacks is crucial for success. Since you never did any testing yourself, it was a fair and widely held assumption to bet your dignity on. You couldn't have known my finding in advance that both DL/DR with 1 stamina (along with a bunch of serious shortfalls in other positions) results in coming 8th (instead of 4th-5th).
But this time you're making an assertion after it's shown to be wrong. In a team where both wingers have 1 pace, and fullbacks have 1 stamina, the team finishes 8th. In a team where just the goalkeeper has technique '8' instead of '13', the team goes from 6th to relegated. And although I did not mention this, I actually switched from aerial reach to handling for my reduced team attribute, because aerial reach 13 > 1 resulted in 15th.
I have more data to pull from. When the 15 pace/acc team was normal, and the GK lacked 4 key stats (that weren't the big three of aer/ref/agil), the result was 12th. When just the single attribute of GK acceleration was low ('8' ), the result was 9th - and that was with boosts to many other GK attributes that I later deemed superfluous.
Yarema said: Not sure I agree with that broad statement that GK is the least important position. Issue is mostly with the way these attribute tests are done. For outfield players it's usually the whole team change and for goalkeepers it's a single player. To put it another way outfield you are testing the change on 10 players at once vs goalkeeper only 1 player.
People can have a different view that's fine. It's not an exact thing and I tried to include some nuance. FM is mainly about scoring goals rather than keeping clean sheets. But some have won the league with a lot of 1-0's or 2-1's so if that's your play style then maybe keepers are more important. I've won champions league finals because my keeper has been my best player. But overall I'd still rather a better ten outfield players.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: It's one thing for you to have incorrectly assumed that stamina on fullbacks is crucial for success. Since you never did any testing yourself, it was a fair and widely held assumption to bet your dignity on. You couldn't have known my finding in advance that both DL/DR with 1 stamina (along with a bunch of serious shortfalls in other positions) results in coming 8th (instead of 4th-5th).
But this time you're making an assertion after it's shown to be wrong. In a team where both wingers have 1 pace, and fullbacks have 1 stamina, the team finishes 8th. In a team where just the goalkeeper has technique '8' instead of '13', the team goes from 6th to relegated. And although I did not mention this, I actually switched from aerial reach to handling for my reduced team attribute, because aerial reach 13 > 1 resulted in 15th.
I have more data to pull from. When the 15 pace/acc team was normal, and the GK lacked 4 key stats (that weren't the big three of aer/ref/agil), the result was 12th. When just the single attribute of GK acceleration was low ('8' ), the result was 9th - and that was with boosts to many other GK attributes that I later deemed superfluous.
Oh Lockjaw. You haven't shown anything to make me wrong. Your methodology is crap. There's nothing useful in those tests. You are someone who didn't even have Haaland as the best striker at one point? How can your testing be taken seriously. The 1ca tests are interesting but they aren't conclusive. We can now run teams and wingers can have 1 pace?
Weeks ago you said stamina didn't matter, or words to that affect, and then more recently you said it did. Which is it? It's also obvious why stamina is useful, what happens if your team has low stamina and why certain positions need it more than others. You running some half baked tests isn't conclusive. As I've said multiple times already you aren't a good tester. Most of your work is just other people's you've redone. Bravo.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: There's something useful in this. For some attributes you only need 1 or 2 guys to do the job (i.e. finishing, jumping reach), whereas others need to be on everyone (i.e. pace, acc).
Surely this is bait?? You cant seriously be coming to these conclusions now? You reckon some positions need certain attributes more than others? And that speed is every player? Im in the Matrix.
keithb said: Surely this is bait?? You cant seriously be coming to these conclusions now? You reckon some positions need certain attributes more than others? And that speed is every player? Im in the Matrix.
Instead of b*tching why don't you post your own testing results?
Rain said: Instead of b*tching why don't you post your own testing results?
Hi and many thanks for your interaction. I don't need to do my own testing when others have done it for me. Harvest green and the testing done by FM arena is good and reliable. It won't be 100% accurate but it seems as close as we might get. Having played FM24 too much and using their results to shape my ratings for genie scout, it's not hard to work out they are highly accurate. To make the game harder I would use a tactic that was rated approximately 10 points lower than the highest one by knapp. The game was still too easy. I can offer you some tips: dribbling is important for wingers, the sun is hot, anticipation is an attribute that is useful all over the pitch but slightly more so strikers, the sea is wet, your defenders should prioritise pace over acceleration slightly, you need to breath air to live, people still undervalue jumping reach it's the third highest point scorer on fm arena testing.
Lockjaw a page or two back claimed tactics are more important than attributes. Another howler. But not a surprise. This is the same person who didn't have Haaland as the best player in the game. How is that possible??? There's something very wrong there. But if you wish to follow this you are free to do so.
Again many thanks for your interaction and I looked forward to the next one.
keithb said: Hi and many thanks for your interaction. I don't need to do my own testing when others have done it for me. Harvest green and the testing done by FM arena is good and reliable. It won't be 100% accurate but it seems as close as we might get. Having played FM24 too much and using their results to shape my ratings for genie scout, it's not hard to work out they are highly accurate. To make the game harder I would use a tactic that was rated approximately 10 points lower than the highest one by knapp. The game was still too easy. I can offer you some tips: dribbling is important for wingers, the sun is hot, anticipation is an attribute that is useful all over the pitch but slightly more so strikers, the sea is wet, your defenders should prioritise pace over acceleration slightly, you need to breath air to live, people still undervalue jumping reach it's the third highest point scorer on fm arena testing.
Lockjaw a page or two back claimed tactics are more important than attributes. Another howler. But not a surprise. This is the same person who didn't have Haaland as the best player in the game. How is that possible??? There's something very wrong there. But if you wish to follow this you are free to do so.
Again many thanks for your interaction and I looked forward to the next one.
It's not that deep man you're on a forum trying to find better ways to cheat an already easy single player game like you said. If you don't agree just move on don't waste your time.
If I run the same tactic five times with Burnley, sometimes it will end 3rd place, sometimes 12th, and sometimes it will have awful results that make me even check if I loaded the right tactic before the test. What I mean is that a single league test is definitely not enough to prove anything, and even two or three would still not be reliable enough to draw any conclusions.
Other than that, the fact that table position have less variance than points in the table do not mean much. The table goes from 1st to 20th, while points go from 0 to 114. Realistically, the same experiment ran multiple times could variate position between 6 different positions, while points in the table would naturally variate 30 or so. They are simply different ranges, but the position in table depends much more from performance of other teams against each other, while points in the table depends mostly of your performance against each of them.
Rain said: It's not that deep man you're on a forum trying to find better ways to cheat an already easy single player game like you said. If you don't agree just move on don't waste your time.
It's a single player game and anyone can play it in any way they like. Sometimes I wanted to see how badly I could "cheat the game" and others I was happier to play slowly with my own tactics and only buying players recommended from my scouts. I also used python which I thought was far superior to genie scout. Setting a level 7 for speed.
If I feel someone is misleading others then I will say something. Or like a few years ago when someone was clearly bullying others on the forum I spoke up. Lockjaw probably loves free speech and he loves people sticking it to people and organisations. So I'm just joining in.
Anyone not finding Haaland isn't by far the best player in the game and declaring "Tactic is actually somewhat more important than attributes." Needs to really ask themselves how they got it so wrong. It shows unreliable testing methods and a poor understanding of methodology, or just testing in general. If that person also has a fragile personality they will just crack on regardless and take no notice, as they couldn't possibly be wrong. As we endlessly see.
Take it easy
keithb said: It's a single player game and anyone can play it in any way they like. Sometimes I wanted to see how badly I could "cheat the game" and others I was happier to play slowly with my own tactics and only buying players recommended from my scouts. I also used python which I thought was far superior to genie scout. Setting a level 7 for speed.
If I feel someone is misleading others then I will say something. Or like a few years ago when someone was clearly bullying others on the forum I spoke up. Lockjaw probably loves free speech and he loves people sticking it to people and organisations. So I'm just joining in.
Anyone not finding Haaland isn't by far the best player in the game and declaring "Tactic is actually somewhat more important than attributes." Needs to really ask themselves how they got it so wrong. It shows unreliable testing methods and a poor understanding of methodology, or just testing in general. If that person also has a fragile personality they will just crack on regardless and take no notice, as they couldn't possibly be wrong. As we endlessly see.
Take it easy
I did a test with Haaland edited to play as AMC in Burnley, using Autumn. He was scoring over two goals per match.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Yeah I have the same issue, I didn't even realize before because I used FM24 legacy role only. If you can apply the FM24 legacy roles to your import, then it should make no difference.
And if I can´t apply? What if I have roles in my tactic in FM26 that didn't exist in FM24 (e.g. overlapping centre back)?
keithb said: Hi and many thanks for your interaction. I don't need to do my own testing when others have done it for me. Harvest green and the testing done by FM arena is good and reliable.
Where are HarvestGreen's weights? I found his latest Goalkeeper weights in an untranslated spreadsheet but could only find multi-step formulae for outfield attributes that involve doing different things if attributes are between thresholds.
What is the best rating for fm26?
captain3 said: And if I can´t apply? What if I have roles in my tactic in FM26 that didn't exist in FM24 (e.g. overlapping centre back)?
You can just pick any role on there and input your weights it doesn't matter
keithb said: FM is mainly about scoring goals rather than keeping clean sheets. But some have won the league with a lot of 1-0's or 2-1's so if that's your play style then maybe keepers are more important.
I was going to add, but decided in the end not to, that you seem to to believe that GK only contributes to goals prevented rather than goals scored. The reason I decided not to is because I had a brief look at the past results to find evidence to disprove this, but realized it would just take too much time to collate all the necessary information to present it neatly. But my impression just from having running the tests and seeing the results, is that GK doesn't just prevent goals, better GK results in more team goals scored. This is more clearly demonstrated/known with better defenders resulting in more goals/wins.
keithb said: You are someone who didn't even have Haaland as the best striker at one point? How can your testing be taken seriously.
Weeks ago you said stamina didn't matter, or words to that affect, and then more recently you said it did. Which is it? It's also obvious why stamina is useful, what happens if your team has low stamina and why certain positions need it more than others.
Most of your work is just other people's you've redone. Bravo.
So you're saying I should make your confirmation bias a prerequisite of my testing?
My testing can be taken seriously because I'm running them in the real league on full detail with players that have realistically attainable attributes, with cumulatively thousands of samples not on every attribute precisely but the basic picture. So I can say with certainty that a team of 1 CA players can win the Premier League, and that a team of 15 pace/acc players can also win the Premier League (4th/5th most typically though), but when I found in my 1 CA testing that concentration only mattered for DC/DL/DR that turned out to be wrong - or perhaps it only applied to that 1 CA limitation. Stamina also did not matter for those 1 CA players, and according to HarvestGreen stamina is one of the least important physical attributes - less important than agility he finds.
It is telling that you think changing your mind is a sign of weakness. What the data is showing is actually that there perhaps aren't any outfield positional differences. I think what is going on with stamina is that it affects the decay rate of pace/acc over a match. So in my 1 CA tests where players have 17-20 pace/acc, low stamina is insignificant because pace/acc is from a high starting point to begin with. This would also therefore be true once you have your 18+ pace/acc players in game. For this 15 pace/acc where we are hitting the lower threshold of the pace/acc requirement, stamina is necessary to make up for its shortfall towards the end of the match. I have done another test earlier where 14 pace/acc/sta comes 8th, so it does appear to work this way. What this means is that in any case, stamina is less important than pace/acc in any position including fullbacks, and one would guess that 20 stamina = 4 pace or acc, so 20% of pace/acc. This happens to align neatly with HarvestGreen's finding of 21.7%.
As far as I'm aware, no one else is doing the kind of testing I'm doing, which is using the real league in situ. Everybody else seems to be doing carefully controlled custom leagues where every player has 10 attributes or whatnot, and even making morale and such identical. I've been influenced to take my approach from previous experience, where I couldn't work out the newgen factors based on isolation tests, so I ended up simply testing the median PA for every single playable club in Football Manager. And from those results it turned out that there is a hidden factor I couldn't have found in my isolation tests and why I could never get my formula to work properly. The great thing about this method is that there's no question of 'yes, but will this work in the Premier League?' - it simply does.
ZaZ said: If I run the same tactic five times with Burnley, sometimes it will end 3rd place, sometimes 12th, and sometimes it will have awful results that make me even check if I loaded the right tactic before the test. What I mean is that a single league test is definitely not enough to prove anything, and even two or three would still not be reliable enough to draw any conclusions.
Other than that, the fact that table position have less variance than points in the table do not mean much. The table goes from 1st to 20th, while points go from 0 to 114. Realistically, the same experiment ran multiple times could variate position between 6 different positions, while points in the table would naturally variate 30 or so. They are simply different ranges, but the position in table depends much more from performance of other teams against each other, while points in the table depends mostly of your performance against each of them.
My observations are:
1) Certain attributes seem to have more result variability than others. For instance, important matches 13 > 8 results in say 4th, 12th, 4th, 12th instead of the typical 4th, 5th, 5th, 8th, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 10th.
2) Say my team comes 2nd almost every test. Liverpool gets 68 points, I get 66 points. I get 88 points, Liverpool gets 91 points. Liverpool gets 76 points, I get 71 points. I'm not sure how this gels with your idea of how it works, but if it was just 2 sets of randomness, why would two team's points track each other like this? In any case, I don't know on this one, all I want to assert is that table position is an adequately reliable measure. Even if you're correct in that it's just as random, but the scale is smaller so it doesn't show, then for all intents & purposes it still works - the RNG does not overwhelm the predictability of table position. Not that I mean to be dismissive of your theory, I actually think it's somewhat important to get to why it works like this and I'm open to ideas on it.
2) The typical position variability for me is less than you have observed. Maybe it's the tactic, maybe it's the unevenness of players, and so on. Now unfortunately I don't save my dud results, so I can't really present data on this. But based on my saved successes, and recollections of duds, I reckon it will be in the range ~3rd-8th ~80-90% of the time. But I've done a test of this below to determine the truth.
So I did 10 one-season tests of 14 pace/acc/stamina + new GK template since I want more samples on both of those anyway:
8th
4th
3rd
9th (sacked after 14 games)
8th
2nd
13th (sacked after 15 games)
6th (sacked after 36 games)
10th (sacked after 20 games)
6th
So 7/10 times (I'm going to count 6th sacked after 36 games) the team did 8th or better.
The mode was 6th or 8th.
The median was 7th.
The average was 7th (6.9).
And that's assuming those early sackings wouldn't have led to higher results later if not sacked. If I were summing up these results, I'd say 14 pace/acc/sta does ~6th-8th.
It's telling that someone has to make things up and lie. I never said the most important attribute for a full back was stamina. I never said changing your mind was a sign of weakness. I did say stamina is an important attribute for DM's and full backs. I also said if you have carried out tests and not found Haaland to be the best in the game by some way, there is something wrong with your testing. If you fail to understand this then what else is there to discuss. Alongside unreliable testing methods I think you have a poor understanding of the game itself. I say this as you don't seem to grasp how good Haaland is. How superior.
Anyway if we look back multiple versions of football manager yes we knew that better defenders meant we scored more goals. Glad you've discovered this in 2026. It doesn't mean a goalkeeper is more important than outfield players. Again we all know if your players have 20/20 speed then every other attribute matters less. Because we have known for a long time that speed is so overpowered. We use the squad planner to see where we need to improve and roughly where we should finish with the highest and average.
A few pages back we have "Tactic is actually somewhat more important than attribute". Can't take anyone saying that seriously. I hope you change your mind on that as it's incorrect. It's more than reasonable for me and many others to believe that a lot of your testing has lead to incorrect results. I have given you some cast iron examples.
At least you were on the right track why stamina matters. You didn't quite join all the dots, but you weren't that far off. There's a part of me that thinks this whole thing is a cry for help. So I'll probably leave it there and let you carry on. But if it is then you should talk to someone.
ZaZ said: I did a test with Haaland edited to play as AMC in Burnley, using Autumn. He was scoring over two goals per match.
Obviously he's a physical monster. But what else do you think makes him so superior? In FM 23/24 I had him score 100 a season. Never had anything like it before or after him in a save.
keithb said: Obviously he's a physical monster. But what else do you think makes him so superior? In FM 23/24 I had him score 100 a season. Never had anything like it before or after him in a save.
I have no clue what he has better that is much better than other elite games, unless "gets the crowd going" makes him score more goals.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I was going to add, but decided in the end not to, that you seem to to believe that GK only contributes to goals prevented rather than goals scored. The reason I decided not to is because I had a brief look at the past results to find evidence to disprove this, but realized it would just take too much time to collate all the necessary information to present it neatly. But my impression just from having running the tests and seeing the results, is that GK doesn't just prevent goals, better GK results in more team goals scored. This is more clearly demonstrated/known with better defenders resulting in more goals/wins.
So you're saying I should make your confirmation bias a prerequisite of my testing?
My testing can be taken seriously because I'm running them in the real league on full detail with players that have realistically attainable attributes, with cumulatively thousands of samples not on every attribute precisely but the basic picture. So I can say with certainty that a team of 1 CA players can win the Premier League, and that a team of 15 pace/acc players can also win the Premier League (4th/5th most typically though), but when I found in my 1 CA testing that concentration only mattered for DC/DL/DR that turned out to be wrong - or perhaps it only applied to that 1 CA limitation. Stamina also did not matter for those 1 CA players, and according to HarvestGreen stamina is one of the least important physical attributes - less important than agility he finds.
It is telling that you think changing your mind is a sign of weakness. What the data is showing is actually that there perhaps aren't any outfield positional differences. I think what is going on with stamina is that it affects the decay rate of pace/acc over a match. So in my 1 CA tests where players have 17-20 pace/acc, low stamina is insignificant because pace/acc is from a high starting point to begin with. This would also therefore be true once you have your 18+ pace/acc players in game. For this 15 pace/acc where we are hitting the lower threshold of the pace/acc requirement, stamina is necessary to make up for its shortfall towards the end of the match. I have done another test earlier where 14 pace/acc/sta comes 8th, so it does appear to work this way. What this means is that in any case, stamina is less important than pace/acc in any position including fullbacks, and one would guess that 20 stamina = 4 pace or acc, so 20% of pace/acc. This happens to align neatly with HarvestGreen's finding of 21.7%.
As far as I'm aware, no one else is doing the kind of testing I'm doing, which is using the real league in situ. Everybody else seems to be doing carefully controlled custom leagues where every player has 10 attributes or whatnot, and even making morale and such identical. I've been influenced to take my approach from previous experience, where I couldn't work out the newgen factors based on isolation tests, so I ended up simply testing the median PA for every single playable club in Football Manager. And from those results it turned out that there is a hidden factor I couldn't have found in my isolation tests and why I could never get my formula to work properly. The great thing about this method is that there's no question of 'yes, but will this work in the Premier League?' - it simply does.
My observations are:
1) Certain attributes seem to have more result variability than others. For instance, important matches 13 > 8 results in say 4th, 12th, 4th, 12th instead of the typical 4th, 5th, 5th, 8th, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 10th.
2) Say my team comes 2nd almost every test. Liverpool gets 68 points, I get 66 points. I get 88 points, Liverpool gets 91 points. Liverpool gets 76 points, I get 71 points. I'm not sure how this gels with your idea of how it works, but if it was just 2 sets of randomness, why would two team's points track each other like this? In any case, I don't know on this one, all I want to assert is that table position is an adequately reliable measure. Even if you're correct in that it's just as random, but the scale is smaller so it doesn't show, then for all intents & purposes it still works - the RNG does not overwhelm the predictability of table position. Not that I mean to be dismissive of your theory, I actually think it's somewhat important to get to why it works like this and I'm open to ideas on it.
2) The typical position variability for me is less than you have observed. Maybe it's the tactic, maybe it's the unevenness of players, and so on. Now unfortunately I don't save my dud results, so I can't really present data on this. But based on my saved successes, and recollections of duds, I reckon it will be in the range ~3rd-8th ~80-90% of the time. But I've done a test of this below to determine the truth.
So I did 10 one-season tests of 14 pace/acc/stamina + new GK template since I want more samples on both of those anyway:
8th
4th
3rd
9th (sacked after 14 games)
8th
2nd
13th (sacked after 15 games)
6th (sacked after 36 games)
10th (sacked after 20 games)
6th
So 7/10 times (I'm going to count 6th sacked after 36 games) the team did 8th or better.
The mode was 6th or 8th.
The median was 7th.
The average was 7th (6.9).
And that's assuming those early sackings wouldn't have led to higher results later if not sacked. If I were summing up these results, I'd say 14 pace/acc/sta does ~6th-8th.
There are many ways to avoid the variance in tests. You could perform statistical tests, use stuff like medians instead of averages, or try simple solutions like "Do ten tests, discard the three best and three worst results, and average the middle four". Those techniques are made to avoid outliers.
ZaZ said: I have no clue what he has better that is much better than other elite games, unless "gets the crowd going" makes him score more goals.
He challenges for more headers and wins most, he takes more shots and scores a lot more goals. He has high anticipation and other attributes that matter. But there is definitely something else about him. Maybe its a combination of all that and/or his hidden attributes. I might have had a guy in a save who was 20/20 speed with also average jumping reach that came close, but then the game was easier so its hard to compare them.
LightningFlik said: Where are HarvestGreen's weights? I found his latest Goalkeeper weights in an untranslated spreadsheet but could only find multi-step formulae for outfield attributes that involve doing different things if attributes are between thresholds.
Weights for genie scout? I dont think he did any. But they aren't hard to work out apart from keeper. You definitely shouldn't be giving every position the same weights though.
Rain said: You can just pick any role on there and input your weights it doesn't matter
But if my tactic has overlapping centre backs how can I see the "real" value of my players in that role if I can't insert the weights on FM26 field?
i like all testing and ideas but just looking at 4 attributes allowed me to win the league with burnley med pred 18, everyone over 14 pace/accel central mids jumping and dribbling above 11, central defs jumping at least 14