Also simmed through a season with Manchester City as another benchmark as most people play with Man City. Smashed the league, won Champions League, FA Cup and Carabao Cup. Images below.
Wanted to get my "4-1-2-3 Carrizzala" tactic tested here. Simmed through the season with Luton Town who are expected 20/20 in EPL. No signings or anything. The reason it's called Carrizzala is becuase the two central midfielders are behaving like both Carrileros and Mezzalas at the same time.
Results probably doesn't look too great at a first glance. But 8/20 in EPL with no signings and with the worst team in the league is quite decent after all.
bigloser said: Anecdotally for me at least, Strikers with high JR get the majority of their goals from set pieces and not the run of play so you are really just cannibalizing goals from your DC that need to have it anyway. So if you have a high JR CB there is not a huge net gain in team goals from having high JR on your striker.
AMLR (IFS) with big JR get more heading goals in the run of play in my experience due to the mismatches against DRLs.
So I suspect JR effectiveness is mostly matchup dependent and these tests basically show what happens if you win nearly every header. Expand
Could be that most tactics are playing with low crosses as well.
My strikers never scores on set pieces. But they score maaaaany goals in open play.
AIK said: I created a Google Sheets with all of these weightings if people want to make use of it to compare stats between two players. I've left it read-only, so feel free to simply make a copy and make use of it yourselves.
Let me know if the link doesn't work for some reason.
Also, I guess it's quite easy to use these as a baseline if you want to create a way to get weightings of several players at once from a shortlist. Shouldn't be too difficult to setup I believe. Expand
You can even use the FM Vercel app - https://fm-client-app.vercel.app/ - and adjust the weightings in the roles there if you want to compare players in a shortlist. I'd probably make one role adjusted for "defensive players" and one role adjusted for "offensive players" based on which ones are best for goals and goals against.
I created a Google Sheets with all of these weightings if people want to make use of it to compare stats between two players. I've left it read-only, so feel free to simply make a copy and make use of it yourselves.
Let me know if the link doesn't work for some reason.
Also, I guess it's quite easy to use these as a baseline if you want to create a way to get weightings of several players at once from a shortlist. Shouldn't be too difficult to setup I believe.
Zippo said: The RNG of the test is about (+/- 1.5 Point) (+/- 1.5 Goals For) (+/- 1.5 Goals Against)
Look at the result of Agility test for 10 outfield positions, it's (Points +8), (Goals For +6), (Goals Against -6) which means it's about (Points +0.8), (Goals For +0.6), (Goals Against -0.6) per 1 outfield position.
So testing Agility only for 1 position doesn't make sense because the difference won't overcome the RNG of the test.
Even that GK position is a bit different than any other outfield position but I really doubt that changing Agility attribute from 8 to 20 only for 1 position would overcome the test RNG and btw, we test each attribute about 9,000 matches and despite that there's still RNG (+/- 1.5 Point) (+/- 1.5 Goals For) (+/- 1.5 Goals Against). Expand
Zippo said: There's only one hidden attribute that directly affects a match result, it's Consistency and it's been tested already.
As usual, everything was tested for thousands matches but then the data was translated for a standard season of 38 matches, to reflect what difference you can expect during a standard season of 38 matches. Expand
So basically, what you are saying is that with 8 Pace there is "X points", "Z goals for" and "Y goals against" - but once we are adding 20 Pace we are 64 points/45 Goals/-59 Against in a 38 match league from the 8 Pace baseline statistics?
I understand the prominence of each attribute, I just wasn't sure how to exactly interpret the difference in points/goals/against.
Honestly it makes a lot of sense that Stamina is a quite important attribute. As we've seen in earlier tests, when players have low condition it affects the performance a lot.
Also consistency is not a huge surprise either. If I'm between two similar players in a signing process, I always sign the one with better consistency.
Falbravv said: It's from 8 to 20, IMO it's near nothing, but it's not useless like 80% of the table Expand
Yeah. I know. But I'd assume the testing means adding 20 finishing to ALL players.
So if we take these findings and apply in a FM save, we now know that we need to find strikers with decent finishing. Obviously 20/20/10 Acceleration/Pace/Finishing is way better than 10/10/20 Acceleration/Pace/Finishing, but at least finishing isn't completely useless in the end.
Is it a fair assumption to say that some of the tested attributes works better for a specific category of players? Such as defensive/offensive cohorts:
Like these attributes works better for defensive minded players...: Pace (+45/-59) Work Rate (+6/-10) Concentration (+4/-8)
... and these for more offensive minded players? Acceleration (+49/-48) Dribbling (+25/-3) (quite obvious) Anticipation (+15/-10)
Obviously all attributes affects both goals for and goals against... but given acceleration scores more goals and have less impact on defense (and pace is vice verse), I'm thinking it might be a fair assumption?
Zippo said: Yes, that would be a quite accurate estimation. Even if it's slight off then I wouldn't worry, it's not a big deal, no one dies that's for sure, we aren't doing a brain surgery here Expand
It's just my autistic brain who wants to minmax everything. Thank you.
Our the most recent research of the subject confirmed that the relationship between improving the attributes and the result changes is kind of linear.
For example, if improving Pace from 8 to 20 improve the result by +64 points then improving Pace from 8 to 15 points would improve the result by +37 point.
You can easily calculate it yourself for any attribute level you want. Expand
You say it's "kind of" linear. What's the definition of this? Is it linear - or not - or somwehere in between?
Just thinking if I, for now, are fine by taking all the results and simply do an addition of each step ((64 points / (20-8=12)) = 5.333) per step, for Pace/Acc as an example). So 9 pace is 5.33, 10 pace is 10.66, 11 pace is 15.99 etc etc.
Table:
Line up:
Selection:
Fixtures:
Results probably doesn't look too great at a first glance. But 8/20 in EPL with no signings and with the worst team in the league is quite decent after all.
Sharing a few screenshots below:
Tactic:
League table:
Team selection:
Fixtures:
AMLR (IFS) with big JR get more heading goals in the run of play in my experience due to the mismatches against DRLs.
So I suspect JR effectiveness is mostly matchup dependent and these tests basically show what happens if you win nearly every header.
Could be that most tactics are playing with low crosses as well.
My strikers never scores on set pieces. But they score maaaaany goals in open play.
You can find it here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VDKyZMt8QJX6ir_LNxALI_dw4-3UzBhMog-Vtpme5yo/edit?usp=sharing
Let me know if the link doesn't work for some reason.
Also, I guess it's quite easy to use these as a baseline if you want to create a way to get weightings of several players at once from a shortlist. Shouldn't be too difficult to setup I believe.
Updated this with GK weightings now:
You can find it here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VDKyZMt8QJX6ir_LNxALI_dw4-3UzBhMog-Vtpme5yo/edit?usp=sharing
Let me know if the link doesn't work for some reason.
Also, I guess it's quite easy to use these as a baseline if you want to create a way to get weightings of several players at once from a shortlist. Shouldn't be too difficult to setup I believe.
Look at the result of Agility test for 10 outfield positions, it's (Points +8), (Goals For +6), (Goals Against -6) which means it's about (Points +0.8), (Goals For +0.6), (Goals Against -0.6) per 1 outfield position.
So testing Agility only for 1 position doesn't make sense because the difference won't overcome the RNG of the test.
Even that GK position is a bit different than any other outfield position but I really doubt that changing Agility attribute from 8 to 20 only for 1 position would overcome the test RNG and btw, we test each attribute about 9,000 matches and despite that there's still RNG (+/- 1.5 Point) (+/- 1.5 Goals For) (+/- 1.5 Goals Against).
Ah, makes sense. Thanks for elaborating.
As usual, everything was tested for thousands matches but then the data was translated for a standard season of 38 matches, to reflect what difference you can expect during a standard season of 38 matches.
So basically, what you are saying is that with 8 Pace there is "X points", "Z goals for" and "Y goals against" - but once we are adding 20 Pace we are 64 points/45 Goals/-59 Against in a 38 match league from the 8 Pace baseline statistics?
I understand the prominence of each attribute, I just wasn't sure how to exactly interpret the difference in points/goals/against.
Also consistency is not a huge surprise either. If I'm between two similar players in a signing process, I always sign the one with better consistency.
1. We're missing Tackling from the list currently.
2. Are these tests done with "Consistency: 20" across the board?
Yeah. I know. But I'd assume the testing means adding 20 finishing to ALL players.
So if we take these findings and apply in a FM save, we now know that we need to find strikers with decent finishing. Obviously 20/20/10 Acceleration/Pace/Finishing is way better than 10/10/20 Acceleration/Pace/Finishing, but at least finishing isn't completely useless in the end.
Like these attributes works better for defensive minded players...:
Pace (+45/-59)
Work Rate (+6/-10)
Concentration (+4/-8)
... and these for more offensive minded players?
Acceleration (+49/-48)
Dribbling (+25/-3) (quite obvious)
Anticipation (+15/-10)
Obviously all attributes affects both goals for and goals against... but given acceleration scores more goals and have less impact on defense (and pace is vice verse), I'm thinking it might be a fair assumption?
It's just my autistic brain who wants to minmax everything. Thank you.
Our the most recent research of the subject confirmed that the relationship between improving the attributes and the result changes is kind of linear.
For example, if improving Pace from 8 to 20 improve the result by +64 points then improving Pace from 8 to 15 points would improve the result by +37 point.
You can easily calculate it yourself for any attribute level you want.
You say it's "kind of" linear. What's the definition of this? Is it linear - or not - or somwehere in between?
Just thinking if I, for now, are fine by taking all the results and simply do an addition of each step ((64 points / (20-8=12)) = 5.333) per step, for Pace/Acc as an example). So 9 pace is 5.33, 10 pace is 10.66, 11 pace is 15.99 etc etc.
Absolutely fantstic work btw.