Some theories about the players' performances in T11

[Panicshot]

Hey there! I've been playing the game and also visiting the forum for awhile now and I'd like to share a few ideas that I got about the possible reasons for player (under)performance.

When I first started playing T11 I thought that the important factors in the game are 1) Player stats and 2) Tactics and Counter formations.
But as the seasons went on (I'm now on level 13) I realized that some players with higher stats are performing worse than other, supposedly weaker players, not only in a single game but for 5-6 consecutive matches (morale and condition were maxed). So I thought about possible reasons for that and got the following three ideas:

1) Probably a player's performance is not a question of the level of stats as much as their balance (between attacking, defending and physical). That would explain why most people consider Nordgen players to be better than others although I don't really agree with that (I've had good and bad Nordgens same as good and bad transfers and youth players).

2) Another idea I got is that maybe some players are suited to play well in certain formations and not so well in others (I mean in general, not as in counter formations). For example my best striker seems to perform amazingly well in setups with only one striker and not so well in 2 ST or 3 ST formations. Same could apply to midfield and defence as well...

3) The last possible reason that I thought about is that players could have some hidden specifications (using the same logic as special skills). For example player A could have a higher chance to get injured while player B would only perform well until he reaches a certain age, like 24 years or so.

Last, I want to note that I'm not dissatisfied with the game at all, I just want to see what other people think on that topic.
IMO the fact that the game is sometimes unpredictable and not just about superior numbers is the reason why it's interesting and kinda exciting.

[Gintaras Račas]

Definitely agree with 1 and 2, been thinking the same. You did good research!

[Buffs Mad]

I think all 3 of these conclusions are reasonable and are similar to theories commonly discussed here.

Sometimes I think that balanced players play better in some formations and in some specific matches because their involvement is a more balanced one. Equally heavily skewed players, say for attacking, can perform exceptionally in some instances because everything demanded of them has been in an attacking sense.

I experimented, and still am, with a team doing 100% defensive counterattacking and all Defenders and Midfielders are balanced for Defence and Physical and perform well, but if I thow in an 'attacking skewed' MC its more unpredictable.

Other theories include some left-footers being better on the right (or right on the left).

I also think there are some players that are destined to be good performers if their role can be found. So I can quite happily go along with theories that there are unexpected good things 'programmed in' that just need to be found.

Finally, yes I both love and hate the unpredictability of some events. I'd guess that the engine has some variables built into it that have such a wide range of values, however unlikely, that a defeat or a win is always possible, given a (un)favourable wind etc.

[gogs67]

Problem is that I agree with what you've seen, but I also have plenty of occasions I could bring up which counter your points!
Especially point 1. All my players are 'loaded' (attackers have higher attack/physical, defenders have higher defence/physical) as far as they can go, a twenty point difference, yet I have a striker averages almost a goal and a half a game for the last 5 seasons and never has a rating of less than 8, and a good few others who are the same.

Point 2 is a good one. I usually play 2 or 3 strikers and if I haven't scored by half time I swap them around in the second half and they almost always score. Can't prove that it was my change that made the difference, but it's possible.

Point 3 is a good idea but I'm not convinced this game is intricate enough to have that kind of level of detail. I have noticed though that a player who is downright crap, scoring 4-4-5-4-5 etc usually has a miraculous change the next season and is suddenly ok, so there may well be something to it.