I looked into this a little more and I think there are some potential improvements to the methodology here
1. In the spreadsheet, the weights from the different sources are multiplied. I think a weighted average would make more sense. Imagine if we had 20 different experiments that all gave the same weights. It wouldn't make sense to multiply these results together, because we'd be raising every weight to the power 20, and all but the most important attribute would "disappear". But a weighted average would give the expected outcome.
2. Also, weights for attributes not tested by FM Arena are set to 1, i.e. of no importance. Do we know that these attributes don't matter? For at least some of them, assuming the median importance output from the test would seem more appropriate.
3. In the FM arena test results, goals for and against are also included. Perhaps that could be considered as an indicator of importance for defensive vs attacking players. Interestingly, in some cases the attribute decrease causes both goals for and against to increase. Aside from a sample size issue, this could also be due to a weaker team going behind more often and therefore attacking more, so this would need to be accounted for.
A final note - I'm not sure what tactics the FM arena test employed. The forum thread mentions Phoenix v3 and notes "we've tried decreasing Acceleration and Pace attributes for different tactics and the result was almost the same." I suspect the importance of physical attributes (plus dribbling and vision) demonstrated by this test are exaggerated by hyper-aggressive tactics.
1. In the spreadsheet, the weights from the different sources are multiplied. I think a weighted average would make more sense. Imagine if we had 20 different experiments that all gave the same weights. It wouldn't make sense to multiply these results together, because we'd be raising every weight to the power 20, and all but the most important attribute would "disappear". But a weighted average would give the expected outcome.
2. Also, weights for attributes not tested by FM Arena are set to 1, i.e. of no importance. Do we know that these attributes don't matter? For at least some of them, assuming the median importance output from the test would seem more appropriate.
3. In the FM arena test results, goals for and against are also included. Perhaps that could be considered as an indicator of importance for defensive vs attacking players. Interestingly, in some cases the attribute decrease causes both goals for and against to increase. Aside from a sample size issue, this could also be due to a weaker team going behind more often and therefore attacking more, so this would need to be accounted for.
A final note - I'm not sure what tactics the FM arena test employed. The forum thread mentions Phoenix v3 and notes "we've tried decreasing Acceleration and Pace attributes for different tactics and the result was almost the same." I suspect the importance of physical attributes (plus dribbling and vision) demonstrated by this test are exaggerated by hyper-aggressive tactics.
I think you can save the file by going to Rating > Edit Player Rating and clicking the Rating > Save button