Subject: Who's better?

Well yeah, I was going to add that it of course depended who you were playing against, but figured I didn't need to :)

that wasn't really the point... was just to show off :P

the point was that he might get knobbled :P

Anybody might get knobbled, but I appreciate that it's more likely to happen to somebody who is harder to tackle yet easy to catch up from behind, than for a quicker player who has zero ball control.

I was more concerned with simply comparing the relative merits of pure pace verus pure technique at lower levels of skill, assuming both players are fit.

Right, experiment over, and I'm bored again :)

looks like you need a new experiment...

anyone can help out this poor lad with an idea?

playmaking v passing?

passing for me.



keeping v pace?

keeping but pace a close 2nd.

Player A -> Stamina Poor, pace Brilliant, Technique Formidable, passing Incredible, def poor, playmaking=average.

OR

player B -> Stamina good, pace formidable, technique formidable, passing excellent, def average, pm excellent.

I refer you to post #2 in this thread :)

lol unfortunately i cannot do that its either or im afraid
(edited)

Stamina makes it difficult to decide tbh. I'd edge towards Player A with greater importance on pace and passing, especially beneficial if he was to be used as a late sub ;)

Average pm might mean a few backward passes but at least they should find their target.

I have a player with much more than excellent pm who still passes the ball backwards anyway so the pm difference might not be so important at those levels.
(edited)

Player A, but I might be biased.

Id agree full game is difficult for him, but he's most effective when he's used sparingly as an out an out winger. He will tire if he gets a lot of the ball. But if you minimise that by keeping him fairly static when the team is defending this will help him.
(edited)