He said it here, about Work Rate. Not sure about the other attributes, but I remember reading that and I've had a filter set at 6+ Work Rate ever since. Anyway, my GS rating puts Work Rate's weight at 25+ across every position, highest for DMs and fullbacks, so yeah.
Lowering the Work rate 1 , it have very serious consequences (goal difference -110),
and it should be ensured that a player has at least 6 and preferably 10 Work rate. A player with a Work rate is not desirable. But continuing to increase Work rate (from 10->20) is low effect. The difference between Work rate 10 and Work rate 20 is relative small.
The 6-point attribute seems to be the threshold for some attributes.
Core attributes are these: Special : Work rate (need to reach 10, higher is useless), Pace, Acceleration, Jumping reach, Dribbling, Balance, Concentration, Anticipation, Determination，Agility.
keithb said: 20 jumping reach at corners for a season is significantly better than 17.
*amateur testers may say different. Expand
Did you find JR to be the only thing that matters on corners? I had a newgen with 20 JR, 14 STR and something like 3 heading. He scored nowhere near as much as a CB with 17 JR, 17 STR, 15 heading. Anecdotal, sure. And I dropped that save, so I can't tell you if that season was a fluke or the norm. Still, on corners at least, JR doesn't look like the whole story for aerial threat.
Jumping reach keeps landing third on every importance list. But it's nowhere near acc and pace. So that makes me wonder — would two players with 18+ JR be enough to cover set pieces, while everyone else just sits at average (10-15)?
keithb said: 16/20 or filtered at 16? Both would be way too high. Its worth ten points?
I wouldn't set any values for attributes that dont go upto 100. By all means filter for them. For example I do injury proneness maximum 17, pressure minimum 5 and professionalism 12-15.
You could set consistency at 5/20 if you wish in the filter. I dont bother. Of course I dont want players who have 1, but it never seems to be too big a deal if they're around 8. Expand
16 out of 100 as a weight in Genie, not as a value out of 20.
keithb said: I've always known it cant handle the hidden attributes and minus values. I posted several times thats why your file was wrong. You still dont understand the game or GS. Expand
So consistency gets nothing at all? I've got mine at 16 in GenieScout, based on the FM-Arena attribute testing.
Eric said: In general, AMC is a quite rare position in the game and for this tactic you need THREE TOP AMCs who also are capable of playing CMs... so I'd say to get right player for this tactic is a quite hard task to achieve but if you do then you'll be rewarder with good results. Expand
So do I need to get 3 AMCs who are natural in CM as well? Damn.
Possebrew said: Afaik, the calculator is blind to Accomplished positions, it only ever considers Natural positions. Expand
Figured I'd give this a try after only using Genie Scout.
In my case, Rashford shows up when looking for a ST, although he is only accomplished in that position. That is the case for many others. It happens in both Data Analysis and Team Builder.
Any way I can limit the results shown in Data Analysis to only Natural?
EDIT: Nvm. You can toggle the option in the in-game Preferences.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: In case you're wondering, keeping the affiliates for Man City reduces median PA by ~15-20, and I deliberately removed them because I know affiliates mess with the newgen intake results as they can replace one or more of them with one from an affiliate club. I wanted to get a pure English club result. Expand
Great test, man. Thoughts about the affiliate clubs thing:
There are 7 countries with a higher Youth Rating than England(136), highest being Brazil with 163. If my top English club gets an affiliate in Brazil, wouldn't that be a good thing? Seems like swapping an English newgen for a Brazilian should be an upgrade most of the time.
The question is, I guess, how the game makes the Brazilian kid: does he get generated in my youth intake with my own 20/20 JC and YR? or is he made at his own club, with their stats (probably lower than mine), and just moved to my team?
If it's the first option then its a win. If not, then its a gamble. Any ideas?
Is Džeko your main aerial threat or penalty taker? That could explain a lot.
If you're using the same tactic and they don't play together (meaning one is a backup for the other and always has the same role), then it's hard to pinpoint the reason. In my first season at Everton with the 4231 God of Chaos, my backup striker (Sandro Kulenović) outscored my main striker (Beto) just because whenever he played, he was the main aerial threat and penalty taker.
But if you're using both players at the same time and Džeko is an Advanced Forward (AF) while En-Nesyri is a Pressing Forward (PF), Džeko will probably score more just because of his role. As far as I can see, most META tactics don’t really focus on one player when it comes to scoring, so if your striker isn’t the main aerial threat or penalty taker, he won’t put up crazy numbers like Džeko.
I guess tactical fit matters — if your tactic is built around feeding your lone striker, he’ll score loads even if he’s not the most META player, as long as the team has the quality to provide for him.
pek80 said: This was in my head for several weeks before this post reveal the answer. I sold my Youssef Chermiti who has 140CA with striker rating 79 and upgrading my Striker to Karim Konate 160CA with 84 striker rating. However, Konate never perform better than chermiti and i keep asking... how come? with new rating in this post, its clear that chermiti rating is 77%TS comparing to konate 73%TS. Expand
Could Chermiti’s higher goal tally be because he was your team’s main aerial threat, with extra goals coming from set pieces?
These ratings have worked well for me too, though I find the high Jumping Reach requirement for full-backs a bit off-putting. Just finished my first season with Schalke and comfortably won the 2. Bundesliga—curious to see if I can win the top division as well. In a previous save using FM-Arena ratings, I nearly won La Liga with Alavés in the first season, finishing just one point behind a dominant Real Madrid, who only lost once.
What made you think that the thread indicates Jumping Reach is capped in the sense that it’s not effective beyond 17? The explanation actually says they deliberately limited it to 17 in the test to avoid an unrealistic scenario, not that its effectiveness is capped in gameplay.
Bafici said: I didn't touch the weightings because i need to make calculations to make the best players rating %100. Like @kvasir said Haaland becomes 99% but if a player has 20 in all the important attributes his rating can past %100. After all its just a cosmetic thing. Expand
My longest save this year lasted over 20 years, but sadly, no newgen ever surpassed Haaland's striker rating.
Middleweight165 said: Thanks! On 1st glance they seem a bit unbalanced. Best GK is 78% whereas best ST is 88%. I suppose it doesnt really matter if we are just picking the best player from the list though. Also seems to be an error on the ST. Don't know if it's with me or the ratings but when looking at my own team all ST ratings are 0.00% Expand
You can fix the first issue by adjusting the weight when editing ratings — it’s in the bottom right corner of the editing ratings window. Try tweaking it to see which settings give you the best balance across positions. I have mine set to 115 for GK and 110 for all other positions, so the best players are all around or above 90%, with Haaland as the only major outlier at 99%.
As for your ST ratings showing 0%, that’s because the rating file was created by @Bafici using the Target Striker (TS) position instead of Fast Striker (FS). Just switch the layout to TS, and it should display correctly.
Orion said: We use vastly different method. As far as I understand FM Arena attribute test has a testing league where they change certain attribute for every player in one team in that league and check the difference it makes. It's overall very good method. I think mine could be called closer to 'real' game environment - since I use data from 'real' leagues. So very simplified explanation is that players in certain position that have high Crossing attribute have high ratings. That's basically it. So the model pick that attribute as the one that correlates in those positions with player rating - so according to the model the higher the crossing the better player rating. If we give high crossing to every player it's kind of useless because a lot of position/roles do not utilize this. FM Arena attribute test looks for attributes that have highest impact on 'universal' level so they look for attributes that will benefit for the whole team, not just single player or single position. Expand
Got it now! The original post said you excluded crossing, but then showed "cro," so I assumed it meant corners. Now that you clarified it actually excludes corners, it makes sense. I already used Claude to generate Genie Scout ratings and will try it in a new save. Thanks for your work!
Jolt said: In regards to Crossing, several positions have Crossing in their most important attributes, so it's definitely Corners. Expand Damn. How come the difference is so big between this test and the FM-Arena one when it comes to corners?
edit: nvm, it was crossing. I got it the other way around
Robbo84FM said: I have seen in lots of your posts about training not to assign youth players a Position/Role/Duty but Something i have noticed with youth players if you don't set a Position/Role/Duty they don't train in the position they are playing, for example i have 2 players who can play as wingers and striker and im playing both as wingers in the u23 team all season but they are still training as a "striker" by default and a player who can play both CM or CAM and all season he has played in the CAM position for U23 but he's still training as a "CM" But with the first team if you consistently play a player in a certain position their training will default to that position, do you have any thoughts on this? Makes me think maybe i should set all the U23/U18 players pos/role/duty to the position they are playing Expand
The position a player trains in doesn't matter much as long as they're natural (light green) in the position they're playing. What you want to avoid is playing a player in positions they aren't natural in, as this will use up some of their Current Ability (CA) to learn the new position.
For example, if you have a natural Winger and play them as a Striker where they aren't natural, some of their CA will be spent learning the Striker position instead of improving their attributes. However, if you have a defender who is already natural in both CB and LB positions, it doesn't affect their development whether they train or play in either position, since they won't spend CA learning a new position.
In your specific case: If those wingers/strikers and CM/CAM players are already natural in both positions they can play in, don't worry about where they train. The fact that one trains as a striker while playing as a winger, or trains as CM while playing as CAM, won't harm their development. You only need to be concerned if they're training/playing in positions where they aren't natural.
That's my understanding at least from browsing through the forum over the last couple of years.
Kamas1 said: Yea sure, I'd love to see it Yea but these players must be interested in playing in my club?? Expand
Yeah, if you're managing a club with a lower reputation, it's a bit more work.
One way to do it is by filtering based on reputation in Genie Scout: start by checking your club's reputation in the clubs tab, then search for players with a slightly higher reputation (though this might take some trial and error).
But the method I use is:
1. In-game, go to the scouting tab. 2. Under the players section, select 'Players in Range.' 3. Add a condition for 'Interested in Transfer.' 4. Add all those players to a shortlist. 5. Load the shortlist into Genie Scout. 6. Then filter within that shortlist.
CBP87 said: Aye, but that is weighting of certain attributes isn't it? what about when searching for a player? what attributes are you looking for, say for a full back?
Thanks Expand
Haha, sorry, feels like we’re speaking different languages here. I’m not filtering based on attributes at all. That’s the whole reason I’m using Genie Scout—so I can feed it the attribute weightings, and it spits out the player ratings for me.
The only time I really look at attributes is when I’m choosing between two players with similar ratings. For example, if I’ve got two CBs both rated 85%, I’ll pick the one with higher jumping reach because I want to score more from set pieces. Same with fullbacks—I’ll go for the one with more pace.
But yeah, overall, I’m just relying on the ratings. Sorry if I’m still not answering your question properly, lol.
CBP87 said: I focus on PA due to the training schedules by Harvest. The bigger the difference in CA and PA the more I can get out of acceleration and pace for them players. In regards to attributes per position, can you share what you look for? Expand Ah, fair enough. I don’t really have the patience for long-term saves right now to see how training schedules play out.
The ratings I use are basically the same as the ones @Bafici posted. They’re split into two groups—Defensive (CB, FB, DM) and Offensive (Wingers, Strikers). So, if a player’s natural in both Winger and Striker, they’ll have the same rating. Same goes for CB-FB or FB-DM. Whereas if he is accomplished as a Winger, but natural as a Striker, Genie Scout will automatically take that into consideration when calculating his rating.
Is it ideal? Probably not, but I’ve got no idea how to make sense of the latest testing when it comes to specific positions. That’s why I stick to the Defensive and Offensive split based on 'goals against' and 'goals for.' Really hoping the FM Arena team does more testing with position-specific stuff — it’d make things way easier.
https://fm-arena.com/thread/13685-current-24-4-latest-version-full-attribute-test-52000-match-samples/
He said it here, about Work Rate. Not sure about the other attributes, but I remember reading that and I've had a filter set at 6+ Work Rate ever since. Anyway, my GS rating puts Work Rate's weight at 25+ across every position, highest for DMs and fullbacks, so yeah.
Lowering the Work rate 1 ,
it have very serious consequences (goal difference -110),
and it should be ensured that a player has at least 6 and preferably 10 Work rate.
A player with a Work rate is not desirable.
But continuing to increase Work rate (from 10->20) is low effect. The difference between Work rate 10 and Work rate 20 is relative small.
The 6-point attribute seems to be the threshold for some attributes.
Core attributes are these:
Special : Work rate (need to reach 10, higher is useless),
Pace, Acceleration, Jumping reach, Dribbling, Balance, Concentration, Anticipation, Determination，Agility.
*amateur testers may say different.
Did you find JR to be the only thing that matters on corners? I had a newgen with 20 JR, 14 STR and something like 3 heading. He scored nowhere near as much as a CB with 17 JR, 17 STR, 15 heading. Anecdotal, sure. And I dropped that save, so I can't tell you if that season was a fluke or the norm. Still, on corners at least, JR doesn't look like the whole story for aerial threat.
I wouldn't set any values for attributes that dont go upto 100. By all means filter for them. For example I do injury proneness maximum 17, pressure minimum 5 and professionalism 12-15.
You could set consistency at 5/20 if you wish in the filter. I dont bother. Of course I dont want players who have 1, but it never seems to be too big a deal if they're around 8.
16 out of 100 as a weight in Genie, not as a value out of 20.
So consistency gets nothing at all? I've got mine at 16 in GenieScout, based on the FM-Arena attribute testing.
So do I need to get 3 AMCs who are natural in CM as well? Damn.
Figured I'd give this a try after only using Genie Scout.
In my case, Rashford shows up when looking for a ST, although he is only accomplished in that position. That is the case for many others. It happens in both Data Analysis and Team Builder.
Any way I can limit the results shown in Data Analysis to only Natural?
EDIT: Nvm. You can toggle the option in the in-game Preferences.
Great test, man. Thoughts about the affiliate clubs thing:
There are 7 countries with a higher Youth Rating than England(136), highest being Brazil with 163. If my top English club gets an affiliate in Brazil, wouldn't that be a good thing? Seems like swapping an English newgen for a Brazilian should be an upgrade most of the time.
The question is, I guess, how the game makes the Brazilian kid: does he get generated in my youth intake with my own 20/20 JC and YR? or is he made at his own club, with their stats (probably lower than mine), and just moved to my team?
If it's the first option then its a win. If not, then its a gamble. Any ideas?
God of Chaos will forever be in our hearts. o7
If you're using the same tactic and they don't play together (meaning one is a backup for the other and always has the same role), then it's hard to pinpoint the reason. In my first season at Everton with the 4231 God of Chaos, my backup striker (Sandro Kulenović) outscored my main striker (Beto) just because whenever he played, he was the main aerial threat and penalty taker.
But if you're using both players at the same time and Džeko is an Advanced Forward (AF) while En-Nesyri is a Pressing Forward (PF), Džeko will probably score more just because of his role. As far as I can see, most META tactics don’t really focus on one player when it comes to scoring, so if your striker isn’t the main aerial threat or penalty taker, he won’t put up crazy numbers like Džeko.
I guess tactical fit matters — if your tactic is built around feeding your lone striker, he’ll score loads even if he’s not the most META player, as long as the team has the quality to provide for him.
Could Chermiti’s higher goal tally be because he was your team’s main aerial threat, with extra goals coming from set pieces?
These ratings have worked well for me too, though I find the high Jumping Reach requirement for full-backs a bit off-putting. Just finished my first season with Schalke and comfortably won the 2. Bundesliga—curious to see if I can win the top division as well. In a previous save using FM-Arena ratings, I nearly won La Liga with Alavés in the first season, finishing just one point behind a dominant Real Madrid, who only lost once.
Looks like jumping reach is most import attr for a striker, but how does this work when this thread (https://fm-arena.com/thread/14009-attribute-testing-football-manager-24/) indicates it's capped out at 17?
What made you think that the thread indicates Jumping Reach is capped in the sense that it’s not effective beyond 17? The explanation actually says they deliberately limited it to 17 in the test to avoid an unrealistic scenario, not that its effectiveness is capped in gameplay.
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/40549/
My longest save this year lasted over 20 years, but sadly, no newgen ever surpassed Haaland's striker rating.
You can fix the first issue by adjusting the weight when editing ratings — it’s in the bottom right corner of the editing ratings window. Try tweaking it to see which settings give you the best balance across positions. I have mine set to 115 for GK and 110 for all other positions, so the best players are all around or above 90%, with Haaland as the only major outlier at 99%.
As for your ST ratings showing 0%, that’s because the rating file was created by @Bafici using the Target Striker (TS) position instead of Fast Striker (FS). Just switch the layout to TS, and it should display correctly.
As far as I understand FM Arena attribute test has a testing league where they change certain attribute for every player in one team in that league and check the difference it makes.
It's overall very good method.
I think mine could be called closer to 'real' game environment - since I use data from 'real' leagues. So very simplified explanation is that players in certain position that have high Crossing attribute have high ratings. That's basically it. So the model pick that attribute as the one that correlates in those positions with player rating - so according to the model the higher the crossing the better player rating.
If we give high crossing to every player it's kind of useless because a lot of position/roles do not utilize this.
FM Arena attribute test looks for attributes that have highest impact on 'universal' level so they look for attributes that will benefit for the whole team, not just single player or single position.
Got it now! The original post said you excluded crossing, but then showed "cro," so I assumed it meant corners. Now that you clarified it actually excludes corners, it makes sense. I already used Claude to generate Genie Scout ratings and will try it in a new save. Thanks for your work!
Damn. How come the difference is so big between this test and the FM-Arena one when it comes to corners?
edit: nvm, it was crossing. I got it the other way around
The position a player trains in doesn't matter much as long as they're natural (light green) in the position they're playing. What you want to avoid is playing a player in positions they aren't natural in, as this will use up some of their Current Ability (CA) to learn the new position.
For example, if you have a natural Winger and play them as a Striker where they aren't natural, some of their CA will be spent learning the Striker position instead of improving their attributes. However, if you have a defender who is already natural in both CB and LB positions, it doesn't affect their development whether they train or play in either position, since they won't spend CA learning a new position.
In your specific case: If those wingers/strikers and CM/CAM players are already natural in both positions they can play in, don't worry about where they train. The fact that one trains as a striker while playing as a winger, or trains as CM while playing as CAM, won't harm their development. You only need to be concerned if they're training/playing in positions where they aren't natural.
That's my understanding at least from browsing through the forum over the last couple of years.
Yea but these players must be interested in playing in my club??
Yeah, if you're managing a club with a lower reputation, it's a bit more work.
One way to do it is by filtering based on reputation in Genie Scout: start by checking your club's reputation in the clubs tab, then search for players with a slightly higher reputation (though this might take some trial and error).
But the method I use is:
1. In-game, go to the scouting tab.
2. Under the players section, select 'Players in Range.'
3. Add a condition for 'Interested in Transfer.'
4. Add all those players to a shortlist.
5. Load the shortlist into Genie Scout.
6. Then filter within that shortlist.
Thanks
Haha, sorry, feels like we’re speaking different languages here. I’m not filtering based on attributes at all. That’s the whole reason I’m using Genie Scout—so I can feed it the attribute weightings, and it spits out the player ratings for me.
The only time I really look at attributes is when I’m choosing between two players with similar ratings. For example, if I’ve got two CBs both rated 85%, I’ll pick the one with higher jumping reach because I want to score more from set pieces. Same with fullbacks—I’ll go for the one with more pace.
But yeah, overall, I’m just relying on the ratings. Sorry if I’m still not answering your question properly, lol.
Ah, fair enough. I don’t really have the patience for long-term saves right now to see how training schedules play out.
The ratings I use are basically the same as the ones @Bafici posted. They’re split into two groups—Defensive (CB, FB, DM) and Offensive (Wingers, Strikers). So, if a player’s natural in both Winger and Striker, they’ll have the same rating. Same goes for CB-FB or FB-DM. Whereas if he is accomplished as a Winger, but natural as a Striker, Genie Scout will automatically take that into consideration when calculating his rating.
Is it ideal? Probably not, but I’ve got no idea how to make sense of the latest testing when it comes to specific positions. That’s why I stick to the Defensive and Offensive split based on 'goals against' and 'goals for.' Really hoping the FM Arena team does more testing with position-specific stuff — it’d make things way easier.