Rating players.
You know what I don't like? Attribute numbers. Boring, white-fonted integers. 75 this, 62 that. An 86, ooh, exciting.
I don't think I'll go down to Villa Park on Saturday, turn to the guy in the seat next to mine, and have this conversation:
"You know what, Stephen Warnock is playing like his stand tackle is 93 today."
"Yep, but James Collins' tactical awareness is a bit 68 for my liking."
"You hear about that player we're supposed to be signing? Apparently his aggression is very 87."
These numbers are irrelevant and dull. Why must we automatically have lists and lists of these things? That's not football.
Yes, players are better at certain things than others, there has to be some way of rating and comparing. Surely it doesn't have to be so boring, so abstract... so gamey. Let's think outside this number box for once.
What I do like are the Specialities, the Traits. These little descriptions that tell me what this player can do, how this player behaves. They tell me what this player
is... (when they've bothered to assign them, but that's another story).
Interesting and involving gameplay is about making meaningful strategic decisions.
Whether it's which platform to jump onto, which car setup to choose, which primary weapon to equip, which spell to cast, which upgrade to build... which player to select... it's all the same. And to make meaningful decisions, we need relevant, meaningful information on which to base our choices.
So... scenario. Let's say I want to pick my centre-back pairing for my next match. I look at my options. Richard Dunne, Carlos Cuellar, James Collins, Curtis Davies.
Overall? 80, 79, 78, 77. How neat. Basically all the same.
Marking? 79, 80, 79, 77. The same.
Tactical Awareness? 78, 77, 79, 75. The same.
Strength? 90, 88, 86, 83. Near enough the same.
Jumping? 85, 85, 88, 82. Same.
Stand Tackle? 83, 81, 80, 80. Same.
Excuse me while I get wrapped up in this decision. I can have this centre-back and this nearly identical centre-back, or this very similar centre-back, or that other one who's the same as the rest.
You get the picture. They're all about the same height, about the same speed. They are all just 'centre backs' of no particular style or definition. Isn't this pointless? So who cares if Dunne gets injured? I'll just put Curtis Davies in, it'll be no different. If I'm playing against Kevin Davies or Michael Owen next, it doesn't really matter.
Boring
Forget numbers. I don't want to see a player with a number unless it's on his shirt, his age, his height or his weight. Maybe,
MAYBE retain an overall rating. Please lock the rest away in the depths of code where they belong.
Does James Collins have a tendency to hurl himself to block shots bravely? Maybe that's important to me, I'll pick him.
Does Carlos Cuellar read the game particularly well? I value that, so I'll pick him.
Does Richard Dunne bring leadership and organisation to the back line? I'll miss that if I drop him, so I'll keep him in the team.
These are the things I want to know. What does that player do
unusually well? What are his notable strengths, what are his glaring weaknesses? What
type of centre-back is he? A brave stopper? A tactical man-marker? What behavioural tendencies does he have? What distinguishes him from his peers?
Traits and Specialities are one miniscule step in the right direction, but we're still a train journey away from where we could be.
The new Virtual Pro position thing is interesting, in theory. A player of a certain style. A creative playmaker, a box-to-box dynamo. A target man, a poacher. Why couldn't all existing players be arranged under some similar scheme?
What if a player's bio was more along the lines of:
Carlos Cuellar. OVR 79.
Position: Defender, Centre.
Style: Tactical Defender.
Speciality: Interceptions.
Strengths: Marking, Stand Tackle, Strength.
Weaknesses: Acceleration, Long Passing.
Traits: Long Throw-In.
ATT Work-rate: Low.
DEF Work-rate: High.
James Collins. OVR 78.
Position: Defender, Centre.
Style: Combative Stopper.
Speciality: Aggressive.
Strengths: Jumping, Shot Power, Strength.
Weaknesses: Sprint Speed.
Traits: Shot blocker. Power Free-Kicks.
ATT Work-rate: Low.
DEF Work-rate: High.
Paints a more interesting picture, I think? It tells me what style of centre-back they are, and which of their abilities are most notably good/bad...
much more in line with how you might really describe and think about a footballer. I can absorb that and know what sort of player I have on my hands, and then make a decision on who I'm going to pick, based on the style I prefer and who my opponent is.
On some level, way, way down, there will be numbers. These numbers should be generated as a fraction of the Overall, then be subsequently weighted based on Position and Style, then subsequently re-balanced according to Strength/Weaknesses, with particular weighting awarded to the Speciality. Blissfully, we should never need to see these digits.
(Of course, each style/speciality/strength/weakeness/trait will require a nice text description, like the current Specialities have.)
So... I can glance at the Overall, and know roughly what standard of player I'm dealing with.
Then I can look at the position Style, and know what type of [insert position] I'm dealing with.
Then I can look at what he does particularly well/bad, and weigh that against what I think I need.
The rest is all superfluous. It doesn't matter if Cuellar's dribbling is four points better/worse than Collins'. Neither of them are dribblers, full stop. I know that because they are both centre-backs of a similar OVR who don't have Dribbling as one of their strengths. That means they both have average dribbling
for a 79/78-level CB. That's all I need, and it's all I'll be able to detect when in-game.
As a side bonus, this sort of system would surely make the data reviewers jobs easier. Instead of having to balance abstract numbers without a hard grasp on what those numbers really translate to, they can set a rough overall and then pick a description along with a handful of strengths/weaknesses. Could result in better, more varied data, I think.
