The correct weights for calculating the rating

I share your surprise that tackling do not carry a greater weight for midfielders. The weights do obviously not take account for the different types of midfielders, as everyone suspected. I personally think the weight for tackling should be upgraded, especially for defensive midfielders. Despite that, I will not downgrade tackling in relation to the match simulator. I still see the ability as a vital part of a good midfield.

with respect to the two players Afghanistan linked, I believe that his players' high rating is mainly driven by the better physic and passing abilities.

I am a little surprised that so many managers have made use of relatively missguiding weights until now. I hope you all will pass on the new weights, so we can get a fair symmetric information part of vman

moved to my new forum

http://www.virtualmanager.com/forums/da/the-sheik-way

cheers

Just seen this thread for the first time. Thanks for sharing Sheikh.

However, I have a question. When you check a player on vmaninfo the top graph appears to show the optimum level that a player should be at if he had been trained for maximum rating in his position. This seems to suggest that the older numbers are more accurate. Are you saying that vmaninfo info is wrong? If so, surely the devs need to do something about that.

LiverpooI FC wrote:

Just seen this thread for the first time. Thanks for sharing Sheikh.

However, I have a question. When you check a player on vmaninfo the top graph appears to show the optimum level that a player should be at if he had been trained for maximum rating in his position. This seems to suggest that the older numbers are more accurate. Are you saying that vmaninfo info is wrong? If so, surely the devs need to do something about that.

vmaninfo is made by Castiglione (the creater of the potential-table). I am aware that he uses Danmarks' percentages for abilities in his calculations of the rating number. It is obviously incorrect. He has probably just used those wrong estimates because there were no alternatives. I am not aware whether Danmark's estimates have ever been correct.

So are we saying that the potential table as you have linked isn't quite right?

FC Stoke wrote:

So are we saying that the potential table as you have linked isn't quite right?

No. I believe the potential-table is correct. But the old 'weights' for the rating number are wrong and may always have been wrong..

FC Dulakubai wrote:

FC Stoke wrote:

So are we saying that the potential table as you have linked isn't quite right?

No. I believe the potential-table is correct. But the old 'weights' for the rating number are wrong and may always have been wrong..

Nice one fella

FC Dulakubai wrote:

LiverpooI FC wrote:

Just seen this thread for the first time. Thanks for sharing Sheikh.

However, I have a question. When you check a player on vmaninfo the top graph appears to show the optimum level that a player should be at if he had been trained for maximum rating in his position. This seems to suggest that the older numbers are more accurate. Are you saying that vmaninfo info is wrong? If so, surely the devs need to do something about that.

vmaninfo is made by Castiglione (the creater of the potential-table). I am aware that he uses Danmarks' percentages for abilities in his calculations of the rating number. It is obviously incorrect. He has probably just used those wrong estimates because there were no alternatives. I am not aware whether Danmark's estimates have ever been correct.

Thanks mate.

By the way, great work with "The Sheik Way". I'm subscribed.

Have to say great work Dublakai, however i dont believe you have the stats right for tackling in midfeild. not that i know , just judging my mids with others i have found with my eye