I'm not going to take a position on this, but I also don't like blanket statements because the game is so subjective to the game's context. For example, I played the same 41 in-game minutes to gauge on sprint/acc 44/46 and 44/50. The latter was more depleted at that time than the first. That follows the logic I expect. Is it a whole bit more? No, but to say there's no difference is just leaving the door open for response, which is another reason I don't use absolutes. I've learned that for every statement made, another statement can be made to refute it - that's why personal preference is given more room than arbitrary values.
Sprint/acc 44/46:
Sprint/acc 44/50:
And again, I don't agree with the higher acceleration makes them less grounded. Here's a raw stream that started using 32/65 sprint/acc from last week, eventually finishing in lower accel values. It was just some chaos/stress testing at the time. In terms of feel, it wasn't off the mark at all. In fact, it shows how authentic features On may be masking some sliders impact/adherence.
In the end, it's what is relative to what is being used to balance the values. A higher marking, a higher aggression tactically, the emphasis to sprint is greater with a higher sprint value, etc. Context matters, and that's how we navigate within all these variables and the sacrifices they require for something close to a footy game. Arbitrary values serve as thresholds, but sometimes the game just needs more sample size and feedback - or sometimes we need to get out of the weeds and just accept that one size won't ever fit all.