Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Youth players
Was very tempted to keep Prentice for a few quick pops and then sell, but figured it would interfere too much with my current training (and I couldn't be bothered).
He is already selling for more than $1M.
Hope I don't regret this sale like I did when I was training DEF and sold Martinovic (accidentally listed him instead of someone else when I was travelling in NZ and didn't realise until 24hrs later when he had bids for him)
He is already selling for more than $1M.
Hope I don't regret this sale like I did when I was training DEF and sold Martinovic (accidentally listed him instead of someone else when I was travelling in NZ and didn't realise until 24hrs later when he had bids for him)
Nice, sold that 16yo for 3mill. Not bad for a player who wasn't even in my youth school a few weeks back
That gives me hope for my 2 16yo’s due out this week. Both average so fingers crossed they level up & bring some sort of cash....if I can’t train of course!!
(edited)
(edited)
Kept this 16yo just in case
Clint Groom, age 16 , sum[2]
value: 4 000 AU$
wage: 640 AU$
very good form
height: 169 cm, weight: 66.8 kg,
BMI: 23.4
tragic stamina tragic keeper
hopeless pace hopeless defender
tragic technique tragic playmaker
tragic passing tragic striker
Sacked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly Talent 5.9, but I think it may be better as the last 15 weeks he has had consistent numbers
7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 11
Or 3 weeks for pop, 6 week for pop, 4 week for pop
Darren Brosque, age 17 , sum[29]
value: 99 200 AU$
wage: 1 560 AU$
very good form
height: 167 cm, weight: 64.3 kg,
BMI: 23.04
average stamina tragic keeper
average pace average defender
very good technique tragic playmaker
tragic passing average striker
To me he looks like a striker with a small amount of defender, but could easily be a defender too. Either way, I'm about to start training tech, so doesn't fit plans in my team.
#1 U17 striker, #4 U18 strike
#3 U17 Def (out of 3)r
(edited)
Clint Groom, age 16 , sum[2]
value: 4 000 AU$
wage: 640 AU$
very good form
height: 169 cm, weight: 66.8 kg,
BMI: 23.4
tragic stamina tragic keeper
hopeless pace hopeless defender
tragic technique tragic playmaker
tragic passing tragic striker
Sacked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Supposedly Talent 5.9, but I think it may be better as the last 15 weeks he has had consistent numbers
7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 11
Or 3 weeks for pop, 6 week for pop, 4 week for pop
Darren Brosque, age 17 , sum[29]
value: 99 200 AU$
wage: 1 560 AU$
very good form
height: 167 cm, weight: 64.3 kg,
BMI: 23.04
average stamina tragic keeper
average pace average defender
very good technique tragic playmaker
tragic passing average striker
To me he looks like a striker with a small amount of defender, but could easily be a defender too. Either way, I'm about to start training tech, so doesn't fit plans in my team.
#1 U17 striker, #4 U18 strike
#3 U17 Def (out of 3)r
(edited)
Pulled these two today.
Pulled as solid, haven't really got a good gauge as to what his talent is but went
7,8,10,5,8,7,8,7,8,8,7,7,8
Linear regression doesn't do it justice either. I mean in theory he could have been 6 first week and 9 on the exit, so 3 pops over 12 weeks gives talent of 4, but it could also be the other end which is 7 first week and 8 exit over 12 weeks. Likely scenario is probably 6 on entry and 8 on exit for a talent of around 6 but yeah could really be anywhere between 4 and 12. Also worth noting I have a very good [9] youth coach so it could be an interesting gamble as his skill distribution isn't terrible and his age is decent.
Glen Knight, age: 17
club: The Comets, country: Australia
value: 56 000 AU$ wage: 1 080 AU$
very good [9] form tragic [0] tactical discipline
height: 181 cm, weight: 75.3 kg, BMI: 22.98
tragic [0] stamina tragic [0] keeper
adequate [6] pace hopeless [1] defender
weak [4] technique average [5] playmaker
average [5] passing weak [4] striker
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pulled as adequate with talent not worth mentioning as I think I loosely calculated it as 13.2 or there abouts. Lucky to have survived my youth school but just never was the bottom of the list of players and somehow continually survived the cut.
Nick Wilsmore, age: 19
club: The Comets, country: Australia
value: 39 200 AU$ wage: 920 AU$
very good [9] form tragic [0] tactical discipline
height: 188 cm, weight: 81 kg, BMI: 22.92
tragic [0] stamina tragic [0] keeper
poor [3] pace unsatisfactory [2] defender
weak [4] technique average [5] playmaker
weak [4] passing poor [3] striker
Think the latter I'll end up sacking but maybe someone will bite for $2. The former could be worth attempting to sell, though again not expecting much for him.
(edited)
Pulled as solid, haven't really got a good gauge as to what his talent is but went
7,8,10,5,8,7,8,7,8,8,7,7,8
Linear regression doesn't do it justice either. I mean in theory he could have been 6 first week and 9 on the exit, so 3 pops over 12 weeks gives talent of 4, but it could also be the other end which is 7 first week and 8 exit over 12 weeks. Likely scenario is probably 6 on entry and 8 on exit for a talent of around 6 but yeah could really be anywhere between 4 and 12. Also worth noting I have a very good [9] youth coach so it could be an interesting gamble as his skill distribution isn't terrible and his age is decent.
Glen Knight, age: 17
club: The Comets, country: Australia
value: 56 000 AU$ wage: 1 080 AU$
very good [9] form tragic [0] tactical discipline
height: 181 cm, weight: 75.3 kg, BMI: 22.98
tragic [0] stamina tragic [0] keeper
adequate [6] pace hopeless [1] defender
weak [4] technique average [5] playmaker
average [5] passing weak [4] striker
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pulled as adequate with talent not worth mentioning as I think I loosely calculated it as 13.2 or there abouts. Lucky to have survived my youth school but just never was the bottom of the list of players and somehow continually survived the cut.
Nick Wilsmore, age: 19
club: The Comets, country: Australia
value: 39 200 AU$ wage: 920 AU$
very good [9] form tragic [0] tactical discipline
height: 188 cm, weight: 81 kg, BMI: 22.92
tragic [0] stamina tragic [0] keeper
poor [3] pace unsatisfactory [2] defender
weak [4] technique average [5] playmaker
weak [4] passing poor [3] striker
Think the latter I'll end up sacking but maybe someone will bite for $2. The former could be worth attempting to sell, though again not expecting much for him.
(edited)
Think you ust gotta go with linear regression as best as possible. And if you dont like the talent it gives you, just dont mention it when you sell.
A lot of people report that as 6 pops in 12 weeks which gives a talent of 2 :D which shows why linear regression is required.
As you say, you do only have a very good coach, which probably only trains youths at about 70% of what Unearthly does
A lot of people report that as 6 pops in 12 weeks which gives a talent of 2 :D which shows why linear regression is required.
As you say, you do only have a very good coach, which probably only trains youths at about 70% of what Unearthly does
Linear regression in and by itself can be easily manipulated if you're only looking at trying to find the co-efficient to determine the talent. I can fix for example the intercept. If I fixed the intercept to 6, the estimated talent coefficient would make talent appear better but it doesn't necessarily make that a better fit for example. In a real extreme example I could fix it at say 0 and have a super biased talent estimate. I guess that's what I was getting at in this example.
Pulled as solid, haven't really got a good gauge as to what his talent is but went
7,8,10,5,8,7,8,7,8,8,7,7,8
I always gauge the talent based on the lowest skill to the skill at the time the player came out. In this case, the lowest skill is 5 and he came out at 8 which means 4 pops in 13 weeks i.e a talent of ~3.25 (I count the initial skill which is 5 as well). I don't know why but I have a hunch that the lowest skill that the coach tells is the junior's actual skill when he came to the junior school. You then can easily calculate the total pops for him. If he had a talent of 3 for example, his skill while coming out would still have been 8 since he would have popped 4 times. If he had a talent of 4 he might have come out with a skill level of 7.
I take the counts starting from the base. So initially,
Iteration 1: (First value is skill and the next one is the count)
7: 1
Iteration 2:
7: 1
8: 1
Iteration 3:
7: 1
8: 1
10: 1
Iteration 4:
5: 1
7: 1
8: 1
10: 1
Iteration 5:
5: 1
7: 1
8: 2
10: 1
...and you go on.
After 5 iterations, I'll consider him as:
5: 3
6: 2
which means that after 5 weeks, he is now at his 3rd week of skill level 6. The logs of 7 and 10 are just his future logs. You'll see players who start at say, 4 and then keep logging 6 for 5-7 weeks and I take it as that the player is logging for the skills of 4 which was shown by the coach just once.
Even in this player's case, we have just 1 log of 5 but 5 logs of 7 and 6 logs of 8. I'll take those extra logs of 7 and 8 as logs of 5 and 6 which the coach didn't show.
And that's why I don't tend to keep juniors who go too low. Most of the times, the lowest/actual initial skill is know in the initial 4-5 weeks itself. In your case, in the 4th week.
I hope I am clear. I know this might be a bit ambiguous but that's how I look at it.
(edited)
7,8,10,5,8,7,8,7,8,8,7,7,8
I always gauge the talent based on the lowest skill to the skill at the time the player came out. In this case, the lowest skill is 5 and he came out at 8 which means 4 pops in 13 weeks i.e a talent of ~3.25 (I count the initial skill which is 5 as well). I don't know why but I have a hunch that the lowest skill that the coach tells is the junior's actual skill when he came to the junior school. You then can easily calculate the total pops for him. If he had a talent of 3 for example, his skill while coming out would still have been 8 since he would have popped 4 times. If he had a talent of 4 he might have come out with a skill level of 7.
I take the counts starting from the base. So initially,
Iteration 1: (First value is skill and the next one is the count)
7: 1
Iteration 2:
7: 1
8: 1
Iteration 3:
7: 1
8: 1
10: 1
Iteration 4:
5: 1
7: 1
8: 1
10: 1
Iteration 5:
5: 1
7: 1
8: 2
10: 1
...and you go on.
After 5 iterations, I'll consider him as:
5: 3
6: 2
which means that after 5 weeks, he is now at his 3rd week of skill level 6. The logs of 7 and 10 are just his future logs. You'll see players who start at say, 4 and then keep logging 6 for 5-7 weeks and I take it as that the player is logging for the skills of 4 which was shown by the coach just once.
Even in this player's case, we have just 1 log of 5 but 5 logs of 7 and 6 logs of 8. I'll take those extra logs of 7 and 8 as logs of 5 and 6 which the coach didn't show.
And that's why I don't tend to keep juniors who go too low. Most of the times, the lowest/actual initial skill is know in the initial 4-5 weeks itself. In your case, in the 4th week.
I hope I am clear. I know this might be a bit ambiguous but that's how I look at it.
(edited)
Good, Talent unknown - 1 pop, 3 weeks
Saxon Butterworth , age 16
value: 48 800 AU$, wage: 1 040 AU$
height: 183 cm, weight: 75.2 kg,, BMI: 22.46
hopeless stamina tragic keeper
hopeless pace weak defender
adequate technique hopeless playmaker
adequate passing unsatisfactory striker
---------------------------------------------------------------
Average, Talent unknown - 2 weeks
Bevan Lachlan, age 16
value: 25 600 AU$, wage: 800 AU$
height: 171 cm, weight: 77.1 kg, BMI: 26.37
hopeless stamina tragic keeper
weak pace unsatisfactory defender
poor technique weak playmaker
tragic passing poor striker
(edited)
Saxon Butterworth , age 16
value: 48 800 AU$, wage: 1 040 AU$
height: 183 cm, weight: 75.2 kg,, BMI: 22.46
hopeless stamina tragic keeper
hopeless pace weak defender
adequate technique hopeless playmaker
adequate passing unsatisfactory striker
---------------------------------------------------------------
Average, Talent unknown - 2 weeks
Bevan Lachlan, age 16
value: 25 600 AU$, wage: 800 AU$
height: 171 cm, weight: 77.1 kg, BMI: 26.37
hopeless stamina tragic keeper
weak pace unsatisfactory defender
poor technique weak playmaker
tragic passing poor striker
(edited)
Of course. If you can find a more accurate way to get talent figures, then I am all ears, and would love something more accurate.
Could bes, would bes etc dont mean much, just cause people to not buy as there is too much inconsistency. For those who understand about statistics, then they know they exist anyway and probably don't need it mentioned.
You can just always type in the weeks, but that also leaves it open for mis-interpretation, or incorrect reading of numbers.
Basically as simple as possible with an as accurate as possible method is all people (may) listen too.
Could bes, would bes etc dont mean much, just cause people to not buy as there is too much inconsistency. For those who understand about statistics, then they know they exist anyway and probably don't need it mentioned.
You can just always type in the weeks, but that also leaves it open for mis-interpretation, or incorrect reading of numbers.
Basically as simple as possible with an as accurate as possible method is all people (may) listen too.
Interesting to see how you look at it.
One problem with this is the lower the coach, the more variable/inaccurate the number given is (and even moreso if they are not playing in that weeks youth match).
Cometer himself has seen players change by 3 skills within the one week, so using that system would actually favour someone with a low coach (especially over a shorter ie less than 15 week junior) as they are likely to report both 2-3 skills too low and 2-3 skills too high (although this second part is partially mitigated by the fact you only take the final week).
Again this is why linear regression has been seen as the most accurate way at present at it takes in to account all the points, and by looking at the R2, you get even more information over how accurate that talent is likely to be. Although this is another level of complexity that most people won't understand let alone use it for the game.
Once the new changes come in, the richest managers will be able to have basically the old youth system but with age included, and we won't have to rely so much on this stuff, and even the higher coaches will have limits on how far off they can report. This will be both good (because you may get more of an idea what you are buying) and bad (because those who understand statistics currently have an advantage).
One problem with this is the lower the coach, the more variable/inaccurate the number given is (and even moreso if they are not playing in that weeks youth match).
Cometer himself has seen players change by 3 skills within the one week, so using that system would actually favour someone with a low coach (especially over a shorter ie less than 15 week junior) as they are likely to report both 2-3 skills too low and 2-3 skills too high (although this second part is partially mitigated by the fact you only take the final week).
Again this is why linear regression has been seen as the most accurate way at present at it takes in to account all the points, and by looking at the R2, you get even more information over how accurate that talent is likely to be. Although this is another level of complexity that most people won't understand let alone use it for the game.
Once the new changes come in, the richest managers will be able to have basically the old youth system but with age included, and we won't have to rely so much on this stuff, and even the higher coaches will have limits on how far off they can report. This will be both good (because you may get more of an idea what you are buying) and bad (because those who understand statistics currently have an advantage).
First one will hopefully sell. that pace will pop quick and likely get a few randoms quick too.
I'm not sure if he will get more now or if you train for 5 weeks and get 3 pops in pace and hopefully a random or two.
The 2nd one I don't have a lot of hope for selling/selling for much, but I have also been surprised over the 16yors that are bought.
I finally found the skills of martinovic when I sold (our number 1 defender prospect of all the youths) and he was Unsat def when I pulled. But because of age and talent, in 18 weeks, he popped 7 times in def, 2 times in play, 2x pass, 1x tech, 1x pace, 1x striker all because he was 16/17 during those weeks.
If he was trained as a MID, he would be even better, but now he is a well rouneded def
I'm not sure if he will get more now or if you train for 5 weeks and get 3 pops in pace and hopefully a random or two.
The 2nd one I don't have a lot of hope for selling/selling for much, but I have also been surprised over the 16yors that are bought.
I finally found the skills of martinovic when I sold (our number 1 defender prospect of all the youths) and he was Unsat def when I pulled. But because of age and talent, in 18 weeks, he popped 7 times in def, 2 times in play, 2x pass, 1x tech, 1x pace, 1x striker all because he was 16/17 during those weeks.
If he was trained as a MID, he would be even better, but now he is a well rouneded def
Where does "Butters" fit with the NT 16 yo's? His skill set fits my DEF training, so was toying with keeping to see if any talent.
Lachlan listed now, in time for Sunday night SK time.
Lachlan listed now, in time for Sunday night SK time.
No sooner listed Lachlan & 2 bids. Only early days but will be interesting to see what he fetches.
(edited)
(edited)