few here can attest that im nothing special at all at fifa.
Well...

Kidding, we had good games, and need moar!!
few here can attest that im nothing special at all at fifa.
could it be possible that it is all a placebo effect?
could you post your team up? so i can take a look
Depends if you assume cause a player costs more it makes them better for your team.
For example- Ribery upwards of 400k but Lavezzi is just as good for 20k.
Deffo mateyPossibly tonight after champs league games.
Major issue with me is (when I do get the chance to play!) that I start playing at 11pm (hour ahead of you guys) usually, couple of hours and i'm knackered![]()
Jonny, c'mon, read what you are saying! I'm not one to usually call people out for back passage talking, but mate, you're talking out of your back passage!![]()
Yeah, but you're different
Jonny, out of interest, how old are your kids that keep beating you?![]()
Cool matey will do, our games are always super close too
(Mind you will probably walk in steaming from the pub and forget all about ya's)
Aguero > Kone
Hazard > N'Zogbia
Sturridge probably as useful as Ben Arfa
Toure > Taarabt
Kaka > Milner
Dani Alves > G Johnson
Clichy > Richardson
Silva > M'Bia
Kompany > Kaboul
Luiz > Agger
Cesar and Al Habsi I can't split tbh.
The first team is and should perform better.
Not really how it works though, a quick example is Milner has much higher stats compared to Kaka despite the overall rating on the card. Also different work rates, Alves will be doing less defensively than Johnson for example.
But you're guessing where the problem lies? Maybe the passing is poor, rubbish shooting? Slow players? Weak players?
The fact is the first team is MILES better than the secondary one yet feels awful, sluggish players, rubbish passing, defenders not marking, winning headers etc.
But you're guessing where the problem lies? Maybe the passing is poor, rubbish shooting? Slow players? Weak players?
The fact is the first team is MILES better than the secondary one yet feels awful, sluggish players, rubbish passing, defenders not marking, winning headers etc.
Clearly they are not miles better then, if they can't pass and defenders don't mark. As above you can't just look at the card rating and assume they are better.
Oh dear.
Obviously they should be a lot better though, why don't you compare them? The fact ever since UT has been around there is some that tinkers with your team, be it handicapping or what that make them feel different to what they should. Usually why I always resorted to a having low rated players, silvers.
IF's for example never feel better than their none IF counterparts.
Oh dear what?
You say they don't mark? so how does that make them better? You are relying on a card rating and not how they play in game?
Thiago Silva's marking is 91
M'bia's marking is 78
So I should just ignore that stat and just pretend M'Bia is better?
If the game decides that Silva should be rubbish at marking how is that my fault?