No. I could win the premier league with a team of 1 CA players that have 1 stamina. And the reason stamina was left at 1 was because I found increasing it had no statistically significant effect, at least not any greater than 10 or so other attributes.
That does not mean that stamina does nothing, but it demonstrates that stamina is far from essential, even for DL/DR. HarvestGreen's data shows 6 > 18 stamina is +8.1% win rate, which is less than concentration (+8.6%), which was the last attribute I included on my toplist.
It's one thing to posit challenges based on your own intuition, nothing wrong with that. And even arrogance has preservation of dignity as is its virtue. But where is the dignity in insulting me only to piss up into your own face in front of everyone?
I did before. They're somewhere, but I recommend just filtering for some key attributes, say this (for adult player):
pace/acc 12 drib 8 concentration 8 (on DC/DL/DR only) work rate 6
That would filter out most of the complete duds. Expand
And yet other tests show it to be the fourth most important attribute in FM24....... It should be considered important for defending, more so than concentration for full backs and dm's. You don't half type some shit out. It's funny to read. It's like almost good, but not really. Like a suspect lecture supposed to baffle and bamboozle the opponent. And yet every time I just think is this guy still a teenager. Are you?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Not that familiar with FM Match Labs, but I think they change everything up to balance things right? So it will make the ratings less accurate, but not by that much. The main things being considered are performance and CA cost, and the training bonuses/penalties I've treated as the strawberry on top.
Honestly, I'm thinking of doing another redo from scratch that will use a more grounded method that I can present more clearly and transparently.
Concentration 25 was the last on that list. Stamina is 17. I missed work rate, which is 31. Balance and Jumping Reach have 2 weight, stamina is 6 weight, so it's apples and oranges.
No I did not previously say HarvestGreen was wrong, I simply meant that in assessing the performance of balance & strength I trust his results because I know other attributes he gives values for are pretty precisely correct. Part of it is that his own results has changed, due to him using a new method, but mainly it is that I have taken 6 > 18 results as the basis instead of 1 > 18 results (since it is unlikely we would sign players with 1 strength, or otherwise be unable to train them to ~6).
Instead of providing a single example demonstrating the above claim, you are instead trying to ask me now 'what about this one.. i-is that a time you said HarvestGreen was wrong??'
Yes, benefit tails off greatly or is statistically insignificant above that value. Expand
Stamina is definitely ahead of those. Its very important for midfield and full backs. I thought you had done some kind of values by position? Anticipation might also be ahead.
I just asked a question. You said your tests got other results?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Assuming you're assessing for DR position, then the main attributes for DR are pace, acc, drib, jump, bal, injury, str, concentration.
So at a glance they look fairly even, trading 3 points of pace/acc for ~13 points of ~30% valued other attributes. Not to mention Martim is doing it with 8% less CA cost, but this isn't part of the rating, just one of the goals.
I agree with you though that at a glance, it wasn't obvious that Martim was as good as Baio, but the math seems to check out.
Keep in mind that 'blended' devalues pace/acc a bit compared to other attributes, because it's imbued with the expectation that over ~4 years of training, pace/acc will grow but technicals/mentals will stagnate/decline. But even if you use the 'performance' file, they will probably still be near even given the math above.
I know I'm blathering too much, but I would also like to say that my old file values pace/acc more, but I simply had to accept what HarvestGreen's results are showing. Based on my 1 CA tests, I don't see evidence for balance and strength being worth ~30% weighting, but his results have always ended up being on the money so I decided to accept and include it.
How GS computes potential is not known to me, and really I should have thought before to say bluntly that using GS 'potential' rating is probably too inaccurate with my files.
We've all used it for years, or at least I know I have, but just as with the rating values it's just not accurate enough anymore given what we know now. It would still give you a good indication of whether the player has room to grow or not, and that's a key thing, but we know that attribute distribution matters more than PA now. So I would look at current rating + PA + CA-to-PA gap + overall picture (i.e. injury 18 would rule a player out for me), and make a judgement based on that.
In your case I would still use the 'youth' file, as it optimizes for low CA (therefore can attain higher peak performance later) and takes into account the effect of training over ~4 years. If you're choosing youth to play first team games, then just switch to 'performance' for that temporarily to assess (or use 'blended' ).
If you just use the 'performance' file or similar, even if you intend to use this youth player in your first team straightaway then he will probably be subpar first team player at first (very few youth would have the pace/acc required immediately), and then a limited player later (high pace/acc, but low mentals/technicals that never grow). Expand
You dont think stamina is important for a full back? Definitely ahead of jumping, balance and strength. I would also include work rate.
Later on you go on to say you had to accept harvest green was correct about some things. Had you previously said he was wrong?
Sorry im obsessed again but your attributes for full back seem wrong.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: If you look at your posts page, your last post before the one in this thread was in February saying to me:
And then if you scroll down, there's a few more that are replies to me or about me. Two of them about being upset about my username are from October last year.
What you claim about me in relation to other people's work is simply wrong. Example at hand: Who else is attempting to update FM Genie Scout ratings values, in a way that merges HarvestGreen's findings with positional weighting of attributes?
Always use the position rating, not the role rating. You can find evidence on this forum that where certain roles will say they don't need acc/pace, they still need it just as much as roles that do have them listed as requirements. Essentially, roles seem misleading and cosmetic.
I suppose it's possible that there are still variations in terms of tactical role. I.e. if you set DL to 'dribble more' maybe it benefits from better dribbling more. But I will say that in trying to adjust one of Knap's top tactics myself along these lines (to suit/fit better a certain set of attributes), I couldn't get better results, so I doubt it matters here either. HarvestGreen has found different attribute results for different tactics used, but the differences weren't that big. Expand
Hmmm im sure I made other posts as well? Between our first interaction and now? In tactics maybe? Im obsessed with tactics? FM26 is trash and I refunded a long time ago, so I dont post much. But it seems I still post more in tactics than I do replying to you?
You dont answer questions I've put to you and ignore plenty of points I make also. I will say again multiple times you have boldly declared other's work and findings to be wrong, only at a later date to retract and say you were wrong. Once is fine, maybe even twice. But you were prolific. Maybe dont be so brash?
Ndour17 said: You can shut your mouth please When you're there doing nothing, don't criticize the work of other people, you obsessed We need people like george and haverstgrenn who move, who do a lot of testing and who take a lot of their time to write and explain to us the interpretation of their research, not obsessed people like you, you obsessed, leave us in peace, the obsessed. Expand
You seem very angry? Are you ok?
Harvest green is excellent, I've only said positive things about them. They genuinely made new and meaningful discoveries. Other people come and go from the forum. There was a guy two years ago who was vile, bullying people and had a huge ego. He left when people weren't giving him enough attention, or the amount he thought his worked deserved. George isn't that bad, but its been funny to see him say other people's work is wrong and then have to retract multiple times. Maybe dont be so brash in the first place?
You could have got obsessed in one more time at least I feel? Aim for seven times in future.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Oh I didn't realize you're the guy who is obsessed with me. It's been half a year and you're still going on like this. I wanted to communicate to others the points I made anyway.
The first line sunk me for a moment there. It's good to hear it's working well for you, I don't actually know how well in reality these files are going to go.
I keep forgetting to mention things. I used HarvestGreen's 6 > 18 attribute data mainly this time, as using 1-20 overvalues things like pressure and work rate. I figure in cases where pressure or work rate is very low, you can either just filter out those players or train/tutor them up a bit if you do buy them. And getting '20' is less likely as well as more CA-inefficient, so that's another reason I favor the 6>18 measure. Expand
Again, what? Your replies are incoherent. Half a year? Obsessed? Still going on? You either waffle on with stuff that makes no sense, or in this instance throw a few words out at me.
I was merely questioning why it's taken you this long to determine several things we knew Long time ago. I have noticed multiple times you've declared other people's work and findings wrong, only to later retract and say you made a mistake. You're cosplaying being an elite tester for football manager, but you're sloppy at best.
I only came on to see if strikerless was still meta in 26. But the forum is so full of your posts I had a peek for a laugh. I see above you've mentioned certain attributes are more important for different positions. Is this true?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Just piggybacking off this to say that I haven't used the player names/clubs to calibrate my values. There's a good reason for this, and that is that in-game player ratings don't correspond exactly to actual performance.
You can see evidence of this in this OmegaLuke video, where technicals give substantially higher player ratings than physicals, even though physicals actually won all the games. Orion's coefficients, which use in-game player ratings to deduce the best attributes, I've found are outdone by HarvestGreen's data which assesses according to goals scored or games won.
So this is why I don't try and align the values to fit player ratings or the best players, as that would achieve the opposite of what I want to achieve, which is show players who punch above their weight in a way the in-game AI doesn't recognize.
But I think there is some value in comparing the results afterwards, just to make sure one isn't completely off-track. Regardless of rating, we know Haaland gets goals, so if he's not up there then there's something amiss.
Additionally I think it's notable how the starting data closely aligns with physicals matter and technicals don't. If you plug in HarvestGreen's data, it just so happens that the top players start in the top clubs in the game. That sounds as straightforward 2+2=4, except realize that this means that SI knows exactly how the attributes are skewed and disingenuous. If they believed what they tell you about how the game works, then we should see these initial players at top clubs failing to perform. In fact, I think perhaps this in-game rating bias towards technicals is to try and stop AI managers simply buying up completely lopsided physical beasts as the game goes on.
I can think of a reasonable counter-argument or two to the above, but there is also some circumstantial evidence as I see it. If you use Genie Scout default ratings, 7 out of 9 top players (one of each position) are white. If you use HarvestGreen's data it changes to 7 out of 9 being black. Either SI still has a racism problem where black people are portrayed as mentally/technically poor physical beasts, or this is intentional. Or both.
I forgot to say that 'sweeper' position is intended to be my attempt at a tutor rating, and for Target Striker I've simply upped jumping reach to 100, as high pace/acc ST is simply better than a slow target man and I'm not sure if heading or whatnot affects the target man's performance (jumping reach certainly matters). Expand
What are you on about?? You seem to be discovering a lot of things years after most people knew that already. Whats next? the sun is hot?
Haaland is clear in FM 24. Surely it hasn't taken this much research to determine that? Mbappe is the best lw. Glad we've been finally able to clear up that FM genie scout default ratings are way off.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I guess a better way of putting it is that I don't want to come across as being snide, as I'm not driven by putting other people down and I also think there's a lot of great info being posted by this Zippo fellow (does he run the joint as well? I don't know).
The obvious retort is, well don't be snide. But how else are you meant to point out contradictions? It's not like I'm calling him an idiot. I'm just saying, look I think you're mistaken on this matter and here's my reasoning why. My name is a reference to this problem. A lot of people will read it and get their knickers in a knot. But it's just a factual claim. Even if it's not true, the real point of contention here for me is apparently we can't debate the facts out in the open on certain matters because it is tantamount to humiliation for people. I don't want to humiliate people, I just want to have a sober discussion about the facts as I see them. And aside from that, what's wrong with getting some enjoyment out of saying 'ackshally you're wrong' sometimes?
In my other thread you said you agreed with the comment that my name isn't appropriate for a FM forum. I chose it for an FM forum because my experience with SI staff has been that if you point out inconvenient truths about the game mechanics, you get hounded as ruining the game for people and banned for being 'insulting' or 'trolling'. Whereas here seems to be a forum where you can say such truths about the game openly. This is an pseudonymous forum, which lessens the need for decorum than in everyday human interaction, but I recognize that there's still a fellow egotist on the other side of the screen. Expand
What a load of shit😂. Do you think we're five years old?! Exposing the truths about football manager has nothing to do with your username.
Clearly you're desperate to be someone in the community, but all you're mainly doing is regurgitating other people's work. Well done. Bravo. You're a nobody. But at least you've got that username, really sticking it to SI!!
nimus said: Could you please recommend a few world-class players for each position? I'm asking because I'm curious about which attributes are most important for each specific role. Expand
World class is tough.
But a few faves; Gadou(variable pa) Alex Freeman, Saba, Bouaddi, Leon Grgic, Monga, Bergvall, Paz, Yildiz, Yoro, Minteh, Gilberto Mora, Uzun,
Bar2 said: This tactic is very effective against teams on my level or weaker, but I end up losing heavily against stronger teams. What could be causing that?
And which attributes would you recommend for the players in each position in this tactic when making transfers? Expand
With this tactic you can go from non league to league winners in straight seasons and probably win the champions league the year after.
You need to replace any players who are slow - acceleration and pace are the most important attributes.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: This simply isn't true. I just played a game with my 1 CA 20 NAT players to confirm, my ST went down to 61% in-match, 67% post-match. Perhaps it is true if match sharpness is also 100%. And if memory serves me correctly, natural fitness does not even affect condition fall rate, it is stamina that does.
As your stats show, the performance loss would be significant. It's not impossible to maintain ~100% condition, it's quite easy. Another reason is that you will also otherwise suffer exponentially greater injuries, as EBFM found injury rates of:
And those injuries create a vicious cycle of low match fitness & condition leading to more injuries. I would guesstimate injuries double overall if starting at 90-93% condition.
Is that really so? According to EBFM's data, the difference between the most intense and least intense settings were 1-2% condition difference by end of match.
Match sharpness is very important, more important than condition. It's performance impact is greater, and it's harder to maintain. So using rest is usually a bad idea, from my analysis of it.
These results might not be directly comparable, but you say that starting at 88% condition results in 16% worse performance. EBFM found that match sharpness 100% > 90% reduces win rate by 33.3% and injuries increased by ~25%.
I know I come across as a bit of a knob here with all of this, but it's partly that I can't resist knocking down falsehoods, and partly that I wrote a post on here about this very topic recently so I'm a bit of a zealot about it. I know I state a lot of things that turn out to be erroneous myself. This is just part of the process of discovery. Expand
No. I could win the premier league with a team of 1 CA players that have 1 stamina. And the reason stamina was left at 1 was because I found increasing it had no statistically significant effect, at least not any greater than 10 or so other attributes.
That does not mean that stamina does nothing, but it demonstrates that stamina is far from essential, even for DL/DR. HarvestGreen's data shows 6 > 18 stamina is +8.1% win rate, which is less than concentration (+8.6%), which was the last attribute I included on my toplist.
It's one thing to posit challenges based on your own intuition, nothing wrong with that. And even arrogance has preservation of dignity as is its virtue. But where is the dignity in insulting me only to piss up into your own face in front of everyone?
I did before. They're somewhere, but I recommend just filtering for some key attributes, say this (for adult player):
pace/acc 12
drib 8
concentration 8 (on DC/DL/DR only)
work rate 6
That would filter out most of the complete duds.
And yet other tests show it to be the fourth most important attribute in FM24....... It should be considered important for defending, more so than concentration for full backs and dm's. You don't half type some shit out. It's funny to read. It's like almost good, but not really. Like a suspect lecture supposed to baffle and bamboozle the opponent. And yet every time I just think is this guy still a teenager. Are you?
Honestly, I'm thinking of doing another redo from scratch that will use a more grounded method that I can present more clearly and transparently.
Concentration 25 was the last on that list. Stamina is 17. I missed work rate, which is 31. Balance and Jumping Reach have 2 weight, stamina is 6 weight, so it's apples and oranges.
No I did not previously say HarvestGreen was wrong, I simply meant that in assessing the performance of balance & strength I trust his results because I know other attributes he gives values for are pretty precisely correct. Part of it is that his own results has changed, due to him using a new method, but mainly it is that I have taken 6 > 18 results as the basis instead of 1 > 18 results (since it is unlikely we would sign players with 1 strength, or otherwise be unable to train them to ~6).
Instead of providing a single example demonstrating the above claim, you are instead trying to ask me now 'what about this one.. i-is that a time you said HarvestGreen was wrong??'
Yes, benefit tails off greatly or is statistically insignificant above that value.
Stamina is definitely ahead of those. Its very important for midfield and full backs. I thought you had done some kind of values by position? Anticipation might also be ahead.
I just asked a question. You said your tests got other results?
Baio vs Martim:
16 acc > 14
15 pace > 14
11 drib < 14
10 jump < 12
13 bal < 15
11 inj < 7
11 str | 11
12 con < 13
So at a glance they look fairly even, trading 3 points of pace/acc for ~13 points of ~30% valued other attributes. Not to mention Martim is doing it with 8% less CA cost, but this isn't part of the rating, just one of the goals.
I agree with you though that at a glance, it wasn't obvious that Martim was as good as Baio, but the math seems to check out.
Keep in mind that 'blended' devalues pace/acc a bit compared to other attributes, because it's imbued with the expectation that over ~4 years of training, pace/acc will grow but technicals/mentals will stagnate/decline. But even if you use the 'performance' file, they will probably still be near even given the math above.
I know I'm blathering too much, but I would also like to say that my old file values pace/acc more, but I simply had to accept what HarvestGreen's results are showing. Based on my 1 CA tests, I don't see evidence for balance and strength being worth ~30% weighting, but his results have always ended up being on the money so I decided to accept and include it.
How GS computes potential is not known to me, and really I should have thought before to say bluntly that using GS 'potential' rating is probably too inaccurate with my files.
We've all used it for years, or at least I know I have, but just as with the rating values it's just not accurate enough anymore given what we know now. It would still give you a good indication of whether the player has room to grow or not, and that's a key thing, but we know that attribute distribution matters more than PA now. So I would look at current rating + PA + CA-to-PA gap + overall picture (i.e. injury 18 would rule a player out for me), and make a judgement based on that.
In your case I would still use the 'youth' file, as it optimizes for low CA (therefore can attain higher peak performance later) and takes into account the effect of training over ~4 years. If you're choosing youth to play first team games, then just switch to 'performance' for that temporarily to assess (or use 'blended' ).
If you just use the 'performance' file or similar, even if you intend to use this youth player in your first team straightaway then he will probably be subpar first team player at first (very few youth would have the pace/acc required immediately), and then a limited player later (high pace/acc, but low mentals/technicals that never grow).
You dont think stamina is important for a full back? Definitely ahead of jumping, balance and strength. I would also include work rate.
Later on you go on to say you had to accept harvest green was correct about some things. Had you previously said he was wrong?
Sorry im obsessed again but your attributes for full back seem wrong.
And then if you scroll down, there's a few more that are replies to me or about me. Two of them about being upset about my username are from October last year.
What you claim about me in relation to other people's work is simply wrong. Example at hand: Who else is attempting to update FM Genie Scout ratings values, in a way that merges HarvestGreen's findings with positional weighting of attributes?
Always use the position rating, not the role rating. You can find evidence on this forum that where certain roles will say they don't need acc/pace, they still need it just as much as roles that do have them listed as requirements. Essentially, roles seem misleading and cosmetic.
I suppose it's possible that there are still variations in terms of tactical role. I.e. if you set DL to 'dribble more' maybe it benefits from better dribbling more. But I will say that in trying to adjust one of Knap's top tactics myself along these lines (to suit/fit better a certain set of attributes), I couldn't get better results, so I doubt it matters here either. HarvestGreen has found different attribute results for different tactics used, but the differences weren't that big.
Hmmm im sure I made other posts as well? Between our first interaction and now? In tactics maybe? Im obsessed with tactics? FM26 is trash and I refunded a long time ago, so I dont post much. But it seems I still post more in tactics than I do replying to you?
You dont answer questions I've put to you and ignore plenty of points I make also. I will say again multiple times you have boldly declared other's work and findings to be wrong, only at a later date to retract and say you were wrong. Once is fine, maybe even twice. But you were prolific. Maybe dont be so brash?
When you're there doing nothing, don't criticize the work of other people, you obsessed
We need people like george and haverstgrenn who move, who do a lot of testing and who take a lot of their time to write and explain to us the interpretation of their research, not obsessed people like you, you obsessed, leave us in peace, the obsessed.
You seem very angry? Are you ok?
Harvest green is excellent, I've only said positive things about them. They genuinely made new and meaningful discoveries. Other people come and go from the forum. There was a guy two years ago who was vile, bullying people and had a huge ego. He left when people weren't giving him enough attention, or the amount he thought his worked deserved. George isn't that bad, but its been funny to see him say other people's work is wrong and then have to retract multiple times. Maybe dont be so brash in the first place?
You could have got obsessed in one more time at least I feel? Aim for seven times in future.
The first line sunk me for a moment there. It's good to hear it's working well for you, I don't actually know how well in reality these files are going to go.
I keep forgetting to mention things. I used HarvestGreen's 6 > 18 attribute data mainly this time, as using 1-20 overvalues things like pressure and work rate. I figure in cases where pressure or work rate is very low, you can either just filter out those players or train/tutor them up a bit if you do buy them. And getting '20' is less likely as well as more CA-inefficient, so that's another reason I favor the 6>18 measure.
Again, what? Your replies are incoherent. Half a year? Obsessed? Still going on? You either waffle on with stuff that makes no sense, or in this instance throw a few words out at me.
I was merely questioning why it's taken you this long to determine several things we knew Long time ago. I have noticed multiple times you've declared other people's work and findings wrong, only to later retract and say you made a mistake. You're cosplaying being an elite tester for football manager, but you're sloppy at best.
I only came on to see if strikerless was still meta in 26. But the forum is so full of your posts I had a peek for a laugh. I see above you've mentioned certain attributes are more important for different positions. Is this true?
You can see evidence of this in this OmegaLuke video, where technicals give substantially higher player ratings than physicals, even though physicals actually won all the games. Orion's coefficients, which use in-game player ratings to deduce the best attributes, I've found are outdone by HarvestGreen's data which assesses according to goals scored or games won.
So this is why I don't try and align the values to fit player ratings or the best players, as that would achieve the opposite of what I want to achieve, which is show players who punch above their weight in a way the in-game AI doesn't recognize.
But I think there is some value in comparing the results afterwards, just to make sure one isn't completely off-track. Regardless of rating, we know Haaland gets goals, so if he's not up there then there's something amiss.
Additionally I think it's notable how the starting data closely aligns with physicals matter and technicals don't. If you plug in HarvestGreen's data, it just so happens that the top players start in the top clubs in the game. That sounds as straightforward 2+2=4, except realize that this means that SI knows exactly how the attributes are skewed and disingenuous. If they believed what they tell you about how the game works, then we should see these initial players at top clubs failing to perform. In fact, I think perhaps this in-game rating bias towards technicals is to try and stop AI managers simply buying up completely lopsided physical beasts as the game goes on.
I can think of a reasonable counter-argument or two to the above, but there is also some circumstantial evidence as I see it. If you use Genie Scout default ratings, 7 out of 9 top players (one of each position) are white. If you use HarvestGreen's data it changes to 7 out of 9 being black. Either SI still has a racism problem where black people are portrayed as mentally/technically poor physical beasts, or this is intentional. Or both.
Here are the values for FM24 blended.
I forgot to say that 'sweeper' position is intended to be my attempt at a tutor rating, and for Target Striker I've simply upped jumping reach to 100, as high pace/acc ST is simply better than a slow target man and I'm not sure if heading or whatnot affects the target man's performance (jumping reach certainly matters).
What are you on about?? You seem to be discovering a lot of things years after most people knew that already. Whats next? the sun is hot?
The obvious retort is, well don't be snide. But how else are you meant to point out contradictions? It's not like I'm calling him an idiot. I'm just saying, look I think you're mistaken on this matter and here's my reasoning why. My name is a reference to this problem. A lot of people will read it and get their knickers in a knot. But it's just a factual claim. Even if it's not true, the real point of contention here for me is apparently we can't debate the facts out in the open on certain matters because it is tantamount to humiliation for people. I don't want to humiliate people, I just want to have a sober discussion about the facts as I see them. And aside from that, what's wrong with getting some enjoyment out of saying 'ackshally you're wrong' sometimes?
In my other thread you said you agreed with the comment that my name isn't appropriate for a FM forum. I chose it for an FM forum because my experience with SI staff has been that if you point out inconvenient truths about the game mechanics, you get hounded as ruining the game for people and banned for being 'insulting' or 'trolling'. Whereas here seems to be a forum where you can say such truths about the game openly. This is an pseudonymous forum, which lessens the need for decorum than in everyday human interaction, but I recognize that there's still a fellow egotist on the other side of the screen.
What a load of shit😂. Do you think we're five years old?! Exposing the truths about football manager has nothing to do with your username.
Clearly you're desperate to be someone in the community, but all you're mainly doing is regurgitating other people's work. Well done. Bravo. You're a nobody. But at least you've got that username, really sticking it to SI!!
World class is tough.
But a few faves; Gadou(variable pa) Alex Freeman, Saba, Bouaddi, Leon Grgic, Monga, Bergvall, Paz, Yildiz, Yoro, Minteh, Gilberto Mora, Uzun,
Congratulations on the 95!!!
And which attributes would you recommend for the players in each position in this tactic when making transfers?
With this tactic you can go from non league to league winners in straight seasons and probably win the champions league the year after.
You need to replace any players who are slow - acceleration and pace are the most important attributes.
As your stats show, the performance loss would be significant. It's not impossible to maintain ~100% condition, it's quite easy. Another reason is that you will also otherwise suffer exponentially greater injuries, as EBFM found injury rates of:
(starting) 100% condition = 8 in-match injuries
(starting) 80% condition = 20 in-match injuries
(starting) 60% condition = 87 in-match injuries
And those injuries create a vicious cycle of low match fitness & condition leading to more injuries. I would guesstimate injuries double overall if starting at 90-93% condition.
Is that really so? According to EBFM's data, the difference between the most intense and least intense settings were 1-2% condition difference by end of match.
Match sharpness is very important, more important than condition. It's performance impact is greater, and it's harder to maintain. So using rest is usually a bad idea, from my analysis of it.
These results might not be directly comparable, but you say that starting at 88% condition results in 16% worse performance. EBFM found that match sharpness 100% > 90% reduces win rate by 33.3% and injuries increased by ~25%.
I know I come across as a bit of a knob here with all of this, but it's partly that I can't resist knocking down falsehoods, and partly that I wrote a post on here about this very topic recently so I'm a bit of a zealot about it. I know I state a lot of things that turn out to be erroneous myself. This is just part of the process of discovery.
Come across as? Bit?
Yes but the mother of your children is also your sister so
It's certainly different. And I agree with you
There is no option to show my Youth (U19) Team.
They have a different name then, search for that. Which club are you?