striker as impact sub

[optimusprime]

Is it worth buying a striker with the following skills and use him as an impact sub def:25 att:45 phy&men:36?

His att. skill is a lot better than my best strikers att. skill but i read somewhere that he will lose condition faster because of his lower phy&men skill(would only play him a half or 30 minutes).

[Abu Latifa]

If he is old guy he will loss less condition I would say but him up to the test also I have never seen much change when I had P&M higher then my attacking points regarding condition

[optimusprime]

Attack is 45 and P&M is 36.
I’ve seen a few similar players 22-25 years old and i thought i might get one for a season or two.

p.s. i couldn’t train attack unless i train defence aswell right?(20 point skill difference)

[Cat Harrison]

I have seen difference in condition loss, it is less when your players have higher phys. My guys do, but the newer acquisitions tire faster until I shift their attributes. My players also seem to be better in the second half.

I would consider him useless, except as an impact sub as you suggest.

20 points difference is the maximum so yeah you have to keep withing that range.


And now I have transformers cartoon theme as an earworm.

[Cat Harrison]

Here's what happened with one of my teams today:



OT & Penalties. Condition you see there directly after. So, my GK, the only player whose highest attribute is not Phys/Ment, was most tired.. Maes, Nelson & Eckhardt I havent got theirs skewed enough yet. But no one orange color.

[optimusprime]

So your players are better in second halfs because they lose less condition compared to your opponents player which most likely have similar or less P&M than Def/Att. That’s an interesting approach.
Do you think most good managers are training P&M to be higher than Def/Att?
I think i‘ll pass on the impact sub btw.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Cat Harrison]

I think I am not an example of how many play (I don't see many guys for sale with their points skewed like mine), there are good arguments for how people like to assign points in different ways. For me, early on in the game I hated injuries and thought it might help to up that column. It seems to have done that, I rarely run out of reds, usually when I do it's because I was power training. Even when they had two matches in a row (before they fixed fixtures times) there would be fine performance and low rate of injury. One argument (and this is many people's point of view I think) is that those points are better used on main skills. But have you ever seen a great player that wasn't in perfect physical shape? Those lopsided players can be awesome in the right team/formation/orders. My guys are built to press whole pitch and wear the other team out.