Mark said: I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.

I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.

So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.

Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:

=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)

This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.

Hope this helps. Expand

I'm catching up on this thread so lots of questions all at once

If I have 2 players, A with a rating of 80% and a positional score of 20 and B with a rating of 85% and a positional rating of 18. Player B's adjusted scorer rating is around 80.5%, on paper he would perform better? I know the margins are very small so might not result in real world better performance

If I have 2 players, A with a rating of 80% and a positional score of 20 and B with a rating of 85% and a positional rating of 18. Player B's adjusted scorer rating is around 80.5%, on paper he would perform better? I know the margins are very small so might not result in real world better performance Expand

My calculation would be that Player B would rate 81.3% so I would go with him. Training and playing him in that position may even lift the position rating up to 19 or 20.

Mark said: I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.

I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.

So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.

Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:

=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)

This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.

Hope this helps. Expand

I have a question about this formula. Are you going off of the General Rating from a player's page in Genie Scout? Or the Positional Rating? When I plug in the General Rating into A1 and the position rating (the 1-20 one) I'm not getting close to GS's Positional Rating. Am I doing something wrong?

johnconnerson said: I have a question about this formula. Are you going off of the General Rating from a player's page in Genie Scout? Or the Positional Rating? When I plug in the General Rating into A1 and the position rating (the 1-20 one) I'm not getting close to GS's Positional Rating. Am I doing something wrong? Expand

Here is a screenshot of one of my players from Genie Scout. Top left you can see the score out of 20 for the 4 attacking positions. Further along you see a rating for each position.

Now here is the screenshot of my spreadsheet having calculated the ability for each position using the algorithm I provided above.

So the calculation for AML is the GS rating of 47.22% * (1-(20-16)/46). 20-16 = 4. 4/46 = 0.087. 1-0.913 = 0.913. 47.22% * 0.913 = 43.11%.

I am hoping this clarification helps you understand

Mark said: So the calculation for AML is the GS rating of 47.22% * (1-(20-16)/46). 20-16 = 4. 4/46 = 0.087. 1-0.913 = 0.913. 47.22% * 0.913 = 43.11%. Expand I have a question about your formula. Why you use 46 and not 48?

If I understand correctly, number 46 is the total attributes included within the formula. Is that correct?

dzek said: I have a question about your formula. Why you use 46 and not 48?

If I understand correctly, number 46 is the total attributes included within the formula. Is that correct? Expand

It is not quite that simple. I looked at the percentage impact in the FM Arena Attributes testing table for Playing Position Rating both in this year's and last year's games. It worked out to be very close to 2.5% per point or 1/40th. Then I needed to calculate what Genie Scout uses for a reduction, which is quite a minor adjustment. I took a download of around 1000 wingers and looked at the differences in ratings against their positional ratings out of 20. Moving from 1/40th to 1/46th was the nearest to the adjustment.

Mark said: It is not quite that simple. I looked at the percentage impact in the FM Arena Attributes testing table for Playing Position Rating both in this year's and last year's games. It worked out to be very close to 2.5% per point or 1/40th. Then I needed to calculate what Genie Scout uses for a reduction, which is quite a minor adjustment. I took a download of around 1000 wingers and looked at the differences in ratings against their positional ratings out of 20. Moving from 1/40th to 1/46th was the nearest to the adjustment.

Hope this helps Expand

So if i use ykykyk balanced ratings in excel spreadsheet and do the calculations on my own, which is the exact number to use for different positions? Including weak foot attribute because in Genie Scout we cant set foot weights for any position and its something that i asked Eugene to add it and he told me that will add it later, maybe in the next game version.

I put 48 for every position but i saw your full formula here and you use different number each time. Please clarify this a little bit further. Thank you!

Just to be clear, FM-Arena's table is a very good approximation of the impact of each attribute on performance. For those that seek a simpler way to estimate a player's ability, it's way easier to just pick two or three attributes of that table and go for it, you will still overachieve a lot doing that.

dzek said: So if i use ykykyk balanced ratings in excel spreadsheet and do the calculations on my own, which is the exact number to use for different positions? Including weak foot attribute because in Genie Scout we cant set foot weights for any position and its something that i asked Eugene to add it and he told me that will add it later, maybe in the next game version.

I put 48 for every position but i saw your full formula here and you use different number each time. Please clarify this a little bit further. Thank you! Expand

That link is for the general rating not the positional rating.

Mark said: That link is for the general rating not the positional rating. Expand

Its working actually for positional rating also. I mean if i have a player with score 20 in winger and another player who has score 19 in winger position i can see which one is better.

For example player A has 80% positional rating in AMR with 20 position score and player B has 85% positional rating in AMR with 19 position score. With your formula i mention above we can determine who is the better right?

dzek said: Its working actually for positional rating also. I mean if i have a player with score 20 in winger and another player who has score 19 in winger position i can see which one is better.

For example player A has 80% positional rating in AMR with 20 position score and player B has 85% positional rating in AMR with 19 position score. With your formula i mention above we can determine who is the better right? Expand

dzek said: So for every position we use the same number? Expand

I am unsure what you mean by use the same number for every position, does that mean the same calculation?

Look at post #245 above. The player has a different Genie Rating for each position and a different position score out of 20 for each position. And resulting calculation is a different final rating for each position.

plus30 said: the only place I don't understand is the general ratings or the positional ratings, which one should I look at Expand

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly, general rating looks only at attributes, while positional rating considers the familiarity to that position. For example, a Striker that has good attributes for central midfield would show good general rating for that position, but low positional rating, since it is untrained.

johnconnerson said: Are the Potential positional ratings worth looking at when scouting young players? Or am I better off looking at something else?

Does the 'Probability Of Development' mean anything? Expand

I always look at current first. I do look at agility difference and potential ability when looking at younger players but cant say I have looked at Probability of Development.

I found a Fast Striker who was 73% rated at 19, but had 91% FS potential. His Probability of Development was 31%.

Two years later, after playing him 90% of the matches and using ZaZ's training, he is 83% rated and with a PoD of 45%. What I make of this is that if I keep playing him and take good care of him he will be able to achieve his 91% FS potential.

Probability of Development is not fixed. It is inversely proportional to the discrepancy between the current % rating and the potential one. It is also influenced by age. Meaning the older the player is, the smaller the PoD is; the bigger the difference between the current rating and the potential one, the smaller is the PoD.

kvasir said: I found a Fast Striker who was 73% rated at 19, but had 91% FS potential. His Probability of Development was 31%.

Two years later, after playing him 90% of the matches and using ZaZ's training, he is 83% rated and with a PoD of 45%. What I make of this is that if I keep playing him and take good care of him he will be able to achieve his 91% FS potential.

Probability of Development is not fixed. It is inversely proportional to the discrepancy between the current % rating and the potential one. It is also influenced by age. Meaning the older the player is, the smaller the PoD is; the bigger the difference between the current rating and the potential one, the smaller is the PoD. Expand

Any feedback about the training routine? How did it feel about attribute growth and injuries, was it better or worse than other schedules you used before? (Just trying to get some input, sorry for going off topic.)

ZaZ said: Any feedback about the training routine? How did it feel about attribute growth and injuries, was it better or worse than other schedules you used before? (Just trying to get some input, sorry for going off topic.) Expand

In terms of attribute growth is definitely better than what I was previously using - the training pack from BusttheNet. I had numerous cases when a certain attribute went up by 2 in 12 months or less. It works very well for the U18 squad as well.

When it comes to injuries, I am really not sure what has more impact - the training itself or the fact that they get rest days. I'd bet on the second one. Anyway, the difference is huge. I barely have any long term injuries. Before giving them rest days, as you suggested, the second part of the season used to be filled with injuries (and not short ones). Since using your advice, those don't exist anymore. One thing I noticed though, there definitely are more 1-2 days injuries from training - a small price to pay for the physical oriented programme I guess.

kvasir said: In terms of attribute growth is definitely better than what I was previously using - the training pack from BusttheNet. I had numerous cases when a certain attribute went up by 2 in 12 months or less. It works very well for the U18 squad as well.

When it comes to injuries, I am really not sure what has more impact - the training itself or the fact that they get rest days. I'd bet on the second one. Anyway, the difference is huge. I barely have any long term injuries. Before giving them rest days, as you suggested, the second part of the season used to be filled with injuries (and not short ones). Since using your advice, those don't exist anymore. One thing I noticed though, there definitely are more 1-2 days injuries from training - a small price to pay for the physical oriented programme I guess. Expand

Thank you for the feedback! People don't give me much input about the training routine, only about the tactic, so it's good to hear it's working as intended. Having only my results and experiments can lead to biased opinions, so it's good to hear from other people as well.

Mark said: If you go to the club list screen and select your division/league, and then double click on your side you will see the rating for your team using the current ratings file. It will initially be based on a 4-4-2 set up. To see the other sides in your league you can press the left or right arrow to scroll through. all the ratings will be based on the formation your have selected with the default being 4-4-2.

I tend to calculate my own ratings because the offset for non natural players is much lower in the GS calculations. Expand

Hi there Mark, Been lurking for a while now, appreciate all that you (and the other great people on here) do for the community! Was just curious as I looked at the above post - Is there any way to change the positions that GS uses for these formations? I.e in the 4-1-3-2, switching TS (Default) to FS, and MC x3 to AM R/C/L etc in line with the @ZaZ formation for example.

Purely the lazy side of me would find it useful at a glance for seeing Best XI (Unless there another way in GS that I am unaware of) as well as the weakest members of the Best XI

Evanscam97 said: Hi there Mark, Been lurking for a while now, appreciate all that you (and the other great people on here) do for the community! Was just curious as I looked at the above post - Is there any way to change the positions that GS uses for these formations? I.e in the 4-1-3-2, switching TS (Default) to FS, and MC x3 to AM R/C/L etc in line with the @ZaZ formation for example.

Purely the lazy side of me would find it useful at a glance for seeing Best XI (Unless there another way in GS that I am unaware of) as well as the weakest members of the Best XI

Thanks again mate Expand

I cant see any easy way to do this. There is no functionality I can see in GS to facilitate it. You can maybe look for other structures that use the position you are after and see which players are picked.

Mark said: I cant see any easy way to do this. There is no functionality I can see in GS to facilitate it. You can maybe look for other structures that use the position you are after and see which players are picked. Expand

Thanks anyway mark. I admittedly went down an excel rabithole yesterday evening and set up a quick "best xi" picker based off stats pulled from GS Arena, using the YK Ratings and Position scores and your formula to derive true positional rating...

Pulling the data from GS is very awkward, however. Cant find a simple way to copy and paste the data and exporting doesn't give the position data (x/20) for whatever reason. Having to screenshot and use a "picture to table" conversion.

Evanscam97 said: Thanks anyway mark. I admittedly went down an excel rabithole yesterday evening and set up a quick "best xi" picker based off stats pulled from GS Arena, using the YK Ratings and Position scores and your formula to derive true positional rating...

Pulling the data from GS is very awkward, however. Cant find a simple way to copy and paste the data and exporting doesn't give the position data (x/20) for whatever reason. Having to screenshot and use a "picture to table" conversion. Expand

Yes, unfortunately that aspect is manual. I haven't been able to find the info in the game itself to be able to download it and it is one of many fields not downloadable thru third party applications due to FM licencing.

If it helps, you don't need to include any ratings below 10

Mark said: Yes, unfortunately that aspect is manual. I haven't been able to find the info in the game itself to be able to download it and it is one of many fields not downloadable thru third party applications due to FM licencing.

If it helps, you don't need to include any ratings below 10 Expand

Ahhhh so there is a reason. i was sure if anybody knew why it would be you.

As I said, I've been screenshotting the data n GS and then using Picture to Table in excel. If I've got time at some point I may dust off the coding cobwebs and figure something out to automate things - I think GS has so much potential in extra features, and its already a fantastic bit of kit.

@Mark Does your chart on page 1 you show (not FM scout one) work for LLM as well or are ratings weighted differently? Thank you in advance for your response.

Jamolisim said: @Mark Does your chart on page 1 you show (not FM scout one) work for LLM as well or are ratings weighted differently? Thank you in advance for your response. Expand

I only play LLM. It works across the board but it is harder to find players at lower levels. You need to reduce your expectations

Mark said: I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.

I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.

So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.

Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:

=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)

This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.

Hope this helps.

I'm catching up on this thread so lots of questions all at once

If I have 2 players, A with a rating of 80% and a positional score of 20 and B with a rating of 85% and a positional rating of 18. Player B's adjusted scorer rating is around 80.5%, on paper he would perform better? I know the margins are very small so might not result in real world better performance

Middleweight165 said: @Mark Which rating do you look at for STs? Fast Striker or Target Striker?

It depends on your tactic. I generally only use AFs so I use Fast Striker

Middleweight165 said: I'm catching up on this thread so lots of questions all at once

If I have 2 players, A with a rating of 80% and a positional score of 20 and B with a rating of 85% and a positional rating of 18. Player B's adjusted scorer rating is around 80.5%, on paper he would perform better? I know the margins are very small so might not result in real world better performance

My calculation would be that Player B would rate 81.3% so I would go with him. Training and playing him in that position may even lift the position rating up to 19 or 20.

Mark said: It depends on your tactic. I generally only use AFs so I use Fast Striker

What about False 9?

Mark said: I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.

I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.

So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.

Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:

=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)

This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.

Hope this helps.

I have a question about this formula. Are you going off of the General Rating from a player's page in Genie Scout? Or the Positional Rating? When I plug in the General Rating into A1 and the position rating (the 1-20 one) I'm not getting close to GS's Positional Rating. Am I doing something wrong?

johnconnerson said: I have a question about this formula. Are you going off of the General Rating from a player's page in Genie Scout? Or the Positional Rating? When I plug in the General Rating into A1 and the position rating (the 1-20 one) I'm not getting close to GS's Positional Rating. Am I doing something wrong?

Here is a screenshot of one of my players from Genie Scout. Top left you can see the score out of 20 for the 4 attacking positions. Further along you see a rating for each position.

Now here is the screenshot of my spreadsheet having calculated the ability for each position using the algorithm I provided above.

So the calculation for AML is the GS rating of 47.22% * (1-(20-16)/46). 20-16 = 4. 4/46 = 0.087. 1-0.913 = 0.913. 47.22% * 0.913 = 43.11%.

I am hoping this clarification helps you understand

Mark said: So the calculation for AML is the GS rating of 47.22% * (1-(20-16)/46). 20-16 = 4. 4/46 = 0.087. 1-0.913 = 0.913. 47.22% * 0.913 = 43.11%.

I have a question about your formula. Why you use 46 and not 48?

If I understand correctly, number 46 is the total attributes included within the formula. Is that correct?

dzek said: I have a question about your formula. Why you use 46 and not 48?

If I understand correctly, number 46 is the total attributes included within the formula. Is that correct?

It is not quite that simple. I looked at the percentage impact in the FM Arena Attributes testing table for Playing Position Rating both in this year's and last year's games. It worked out to be very close to 2.5% per point or 1/40th. Then I needed to calculate what Genie Scout uses for a reduction, which is quite a minor adjustment. I took a download of around 1000 wingers and looked at the differences in ratings against their positional ratings out of 20. Moving from 1/40th to 1/46th was the nearest to the adjustment.

Hope this helps

Mark said: It is not quite that simple. I looked at the percentage impact in the FM Arena Attributes testing table for Playing Position Rating both in this year's and last year's games. It worked out to be very close to 2.5% per point or 1/40th. Then I needed to calculate what Genie Scout uses for a reduction, which is quite a minor adjustment. I took a download of around 1000 wingers and looked at the differences in ratings against their positional ratings out of 20. Moving from 1/40th to 1/46th was the nearest to the adjustment.

Hope this helps

So if i use ykykyk balanced ratings in excel spreadsheet and do the calculations on my own, which is the exact number to use for different positions? Including weak foot attribute because in Genie Scout we cant set foot weights for any position and its something that i asked Eugene to add it and he told me that will add it later, maybe in the next game version.

I put 48 for every position but i saw your full formula here and you use different number each time. Please clarify this a little bit further. Thank you!

Just to be clear, FM-Arena's table is a very good approximation of the impact of each attribute on performance. For those that seek a simpler way to estimate a player's ability, it's way easier to just pick two or three attributes of that table and go for it, you will still overachieve a lot doing that.

dzek said: So if i use ykykyk balanced ratings in excel spreadsheet and do the calculations on my own, which is the exact number to use for different positions? Including weak foot attribute because in Genie Scout we cant set foot weights for any position and its something that i asked Eugene to add it and he told me that will add it later, maybe in the next game version.

I put 48 for every position but i saw your full formula here and you use different number each time. Please clarify this a little bit further. Thank you!

That link is for the general rating not the positional rating.

Mark said: That link is for the general rating not the positional rating.

Its working actually for positional rating also. I mean if i have a player with score 20 in winger and another player who has score 19 in winger position i can see which one is better.

For example player A has 80% positional rating in AMR with 20 position score and player B has 85% positional rating in AMR with 19 position score. With your formula i mention above we can determine who is the better right?

dzek said: Its working actually for positional rating also. I mean if i have a player with score 20 in winger and another player who has score 19 in winger position i can see which one is better.

For example player A has 80% positional rating in AMR with 20 position score and player B has 85% positional rating in AMR with 19 position score. With your formula i mention above we can determine who is the better right?

Correct

Mark said: Correct

So for every position we use the same number?

dzek said: So for every position we use the same number?

I am unsure what you mean by use the same number for every position, does that mean the same calculation?

Look at post #245 above. The player has a different Genie Rating for each position and a different position score out of 20 for each position. And resulting calculation is a different final rating for each position.

Middleweight165 said: What about False 9?

I use Fast Striker calculations for False 9.

the only place I don't understand is the general ratings or the positional ratings, which one should I look at

plus30 said: the only place I don't understand is the general ratings or the positional ratings, which one should I look at

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly, general rating looks only at attributes, while positional rating considers the familiarity to that position. For example, a Striker that has good attributes for central midfield would show good general rating for that position, but low positional rating, since it is untrained.

Are the Potential positional ratings worth looking at when scouting young players? Or am I better off looking at something else?

Does the 'Probability Of Development' mean anything?

johnconnerson said: Are the Potential positional ratings worth looking at when scouting young players? Or am I better off looking at something else?

Does the 'Probability Of Development' mean anything?

I always look at current first. I do look at agility difference and potential ability when looking at younger players but cant say I have looked at Probability of Development.

johnconnerson said: Does the 'Probability Of Development' mean anything?

I found a Fast Striker who was 73% rated at 19, but had 91% FS potential. His Probability of Development was 31%.

Two years later, after playing him 90% of the matches and using ZaZ's training, he is 83% rated and with a PoD of 45%. What I make of this is that if I keep playing him and take good care of him he will be able to achieve his 91% FS potential.

Probability of Development is not fixed. It is inversely proportional to the discrepancy between the current % rating and the potential one. It is also influenced by age. Meaning the older the player is, the smaller the PoD is; the bigger the difference between the current rating and the potential one, the smaller is the PoD.

kvasir said: I found a Fast Striker who was 73% rated at 19, but had 91% FS potential. His Probability of Development was 31%.

Two years later, after playing him 90% of the matches and using ZaZ's training, he is 83% rated and with a PoD of 45%. What I make of this is that if I keep playing him and take good care of him he will be able to achieve his 91% FS potential.

Probability of Development is not fixed. It is inversely proportional to the discrepancy between the current % rating and the potential one. It is also influenced by age. Meaning the older the player is, the smaller the PoD is; the bigger the difference between the current rating and the potential one, the smaller is the PoD.

Any feedback about the training routine? How did it feel about attribute growth and injuries, was it better or worse than other schedules you used before? (Just trying to get some input, sorry for going off topic.)

ZaZ said: Any feedback about the training routine? How did it feel about attribute growth and injuries, was it better or worse than other schedules you used before? (Just trying to get some input, sorry for going off topic.)

In terms of

attribute growthis definitely better than what I was previously using - the training pack from BusttheNet. I had numerous cases when a certain attribute went up by 2 in 12 months or less. It works very well for the U18 squad as well.When it comes to

injuries, I am really not sure what has more impact - the training itself or the fact that they get rest days. I'd bet on the second one. Anyway, the difference is huge. I barely have any long term injuries. Before giving them rest days, as you suggested, the second part of the season used to be filled with injuries (and not short ones). Since using your advice, those don't exist anymore. One thing I noticed though, there definitely are more 1-2 days injuries from training - a small price to pay for the physical oriented programme I guess.kvasir said: In terms of

attribute growthis definitely better than what I was previously using - the training pack from BusttheNet. I had numerous cases when a certain attribute went up by 2 in 12 months or less. It works very well for the U18 squad as well.When it comes to

injuries, I am really not sure what has more impact - the training itself or the fact that they get rest days. I'd bet on the second one. Anyway, the difference is huge. I barely have any long term injuries. Before giving them rest days, as you suggested, the second part of the season used to be filled with injuries (and not short ones). Since using your advice, those don't exist anymore. One thing I noticed though, there definitely are more 1-2 days injuries from training - a small price to pay for the physical oriented programme I guess.Thank you for the feedback! People don't give me much input about the training routine, only about the tactic, so it's good to hear it's working as intended. Having only my results and experiments can lead to biased opinions, so it's good to hear from other people as well.

Mark said: If you go to the club list screen and select your division/league, and then double click on your side you will see the rating for your team using the current ratings file. It will initially be based on a 4-4-2 set up. To see the other sides in your league you can press the left or right arrow to scroll through. all the ratings will be based on the formation your have selected with the default being 4-4-2.

I tend to calculate my own ratings because the offset for non natural players is much lower in the GS calculations.

Hi there Mark,

Been lurking for a while now, appreciate all that you (and the other great people on here) do for the community! Was just curious as I looked at the above post - Is there any way to change the positions that GS uses for these formations? I.e in the 4-1-3-2, switching TS (Default) to FS, and MC x3 to AM R/C/L etc in line with the @ZaZ formation for example.

Purely the lazy side of me would find it useful at a glance for seeing Best XI (Unless there another way in GS that I am unaware of) as well as the weakest members of the Best XI

Thanks again mate

Evanscam97 said: Hi there Mark,

Been lurking for a while now, appreciate all that you (and the other great people on here) do for the community! Was just curious as I looked at the above post - Is there any way to change the positions that GS uses for these formations? I.e in the 4-1-3-2, switching TS (Default) to FS, and MC x3 to AM R/C/L etc in line with the @ZaZ formation for example.

Purely the lazy side of me would find it useful at a glance for seeing Best XI (Unless there another way in GS that I am unaware of) as well as the weakest members of the Best XI

Thanks again mate

I cant see any easy way to do this. There is no functionality I can see in GS to facilitate it. You can maybe look for other structures that use the position you are after and see which players are picked.

Mark said: I cant see any easy way to do this. There is no functionality I can see in GS to facilitate it. You can maybe look for other structures that use the position you are after and see which players are picked.

Thanks anyway mark. I admittedly went down an excel rabithole yesterday evening and set up a quick "best xi" picker based off stats pulled from GS Arena, using the YK Ratings and Position scores and your formula to derive true positional rating...

Pulling the data from GS is very awkward, however. Cant find a simple way to copy and paste the data and exporting doesn't give the position data (x/20) for whatever reason. Having to screenshot and use a "picture to table" conversion.

Evanscam97 said: Thanks anyway mark. I admittedly went down an excel rabithole yesterday evening and set up a quick "best xi" picker based off stats pulled from GS Arena, using the YK Ratings and Position scores and your formula to derive true positional rating...

Pulling the data from GS is very awkward, however. Cant find a simple way to copy and paste the data and exporting doesn't give the position data (x/20) for whatever reason. Having to screenshot and use a "picture to table" conversion.

Yes, unfortunately that aspect is manual. I haven't been able to find the info in the game itself to be able to download it and it is one of many fields not downloadable thru third party applications due to FM licencing.

If it helps, you don't need to include any ratings below 10

Mark said: Yes, unfortunately that aspect is manual. I haven't been able to find the info in the game itself to be able to download it and it is one of many fields not downloadable thru third party applications due to FM licencing.

If it helps, you don't need to include any ratings below 10

Ahhhh so there is a reason. i was sure if anybody knew why it would be you.

As I said, I've been screenshotting the data n GS and then using Picture to Table in excel. If I've got time at some point I may dust off the coding cobwebs and figure something out to automate things - I think GS has so much potential in extra features, and its already a fantastic bit of kit.

@Mark Does your chart on page 1 you show (not FM scout one) work for LLM as well or are ratings weighted differently? Thank you in advance for your response.

Jamolisim said: @Mark Does your chart on page 1 you show (not FM scout one) work for LLM as well or are ratings weighted differently? Thank you in advance for your response.

I only play LLM. It works across the board but it is harder to find players at lower levels. You need to reduce your expectations