Man Management.

This may belong in the "Tactics and Training" forum but ultimately it is a discussion regarding neither aspect in specifics and is a discussion devoted to one of the most fundamentally important and powerful aspects of Football Manager 2009.

Before I delve into man management from an FM perspective I wish to show an example of man management in real world football that is not only shocking and incomprehensible to the average viewer but beautifully epitomises the fundamental nature of man management from a managerial perspective, and the risks that go with it.

is an example of a world famous ferocious footballer with no end of physical power and emotional/anger management issues physically assaulting one of the most experienced, respected and powerful men in world football.

That player not only was able to continue playing international football, but was allowed by the same coach to continue playing under his management.

was the consequence.

It is no exaggeration to state that Marcelo Lippi was risking severe physical injury by selecting Gattuso, and at his age he is possibly risking his life. This is not an example of man management gone wrong as some people might believe, this is an example of risk taking and calculation by the manager that the player in question simply does not comprehend.

It is clear that the vast quantities of emotional rage present in Gattuso were directed towards his manager. It is also clear from both videos that Gattuso not only feared his manager but respected him, in his own particular way. I am sure that someone as unstable as Gattuso would have no qualms in beating the living daylights out of someone that itched and scratched and gnawed their way under his skin and showed him not the slightest bit of respect. He backs out of hurting Lippi because despite the fact his manager itched and scratched and clawed his way under Gattuso's skin, Gattuso respects Lippi and Gattuso fears the truth that Lippi is undoubtedly going to speak in the dressing room.

Not only is Lippi aware of this but Lippi is using this. Gattuso does not fear the football pitch, he fears the dressing room at full time. Because it is Lippi that is there, because Lippi shows no fear and because Lippi is a man whose personality and achievements force his views to be listened to and respected, irrespective of the psychoses of any individual player, and that's why Gattuso hates him.

To those that do not understand football this is rediculous risk taking and horrendous viewing. To those that understand football this is the epitome of management and a set of circumstance that have already gone down in history. This is the highest level of management in a game where the victors go down in history, at a level where victory is won by being prepared to fight and die for the inch. When the players fear the dressing room more than the pitch you cannot expect from them anything more than what has already been given. Genius, and all want-to-be managers should take note whether real life or virtual.

From a Football Manager computer game perspective man management has progressed deeply in a few short years. It perhaps lacks the depth that some of us would hope, some us that perhaps misunderstand the current depth and effectiveness of the system. Man management is atleast equal to tactical expertise where players remains the constant, and as is obvious from these forums and from ingame experience has reached a level where motivation is a profound influence upon short term results and long term achievements. Though perhaps few acknowledge it many have seen the effect of highly motivated strikers against poorly motivated centrebacks, and highly motivated centrebacks against poorly motivated strikers. Many have seen the differences between one half and the next, explainable only through team talks, and perhaps most telling of all many have come to these forums to seek generic, one shoe fits all team talk strategies.

As shown by the existence of context relevant, previous game dependant teamtalks, man mangement is a continual process of influence. Within a game that is so dependant upon huge numbers of variables for every member of a team as Football Manager, man management cannot be easilly reduced to a formulaic system such as A+B=C. From my experience of the game I think that the best advice that can be given to any manager is to try to view the players as holistic entities and, as ironic as it sounds for a computer game, to try and get inside their heads.

Man management is a truly complex issue but when reduced to the issue of motivation I believe it can be viewed in two concise principles.

The first principle is the relationship between the player and the manager. The second principle is the relationship between the player and his performances in relation to a specific opponent. The two are not so neatly divided as this but where one is a constant the second is a means of influence. In short the question of match performance is a question of the players relationship to you and your motivation of the player. Assistant Managers can be helpful but Assistant Managers do not have the same relationship to the player as you do. In my opinion this is profound. These two principles should form the bedrock of all decisions on interaction. Every single method of man management should be based on improving performances, improving the relationship between player and manager, or if you are lucky on improving both.

The means of interaction are simple, you have the media and you have match day as the direct influences of man management of relationship and motivation, and you have managerial decisions that influence morale and player perception. The mode of influence is entireally dependant upon the player and not only are players complex in their constitution but are variable in their reactions dependant upon circumstance. In short you cannot judge a reaction purely upon the direct results of specific previous reactions alone, you must consider the situation of the player in relation to personal issues, in relation to the opponent, and in relation to your own influence over him.

All means of interaction influence both long term relationships and short term performance reactions, and they influence short term relationships and long term performance reactions. The question then is not only contextual and player dependant but strategic, for those that attempt to trully delve into the depth offered by this game.

The relationship between player and manager in FM09 is a true modifier of the effect of interaction. Perhaps one of the greatest weapons in the arsenal of a manager is the criticism of players that have a close relationship with you. Alas the relationship between player and performance is also a true modifier of a players relationship with you and you can become hated for demanding perfection. This inter-relation of principles is functional to the extent that it inspired my inclusion of the Lippi-Gattuso scenario; if I did not see it I would not include it.

I would like to go into further depth regarding this issue for now that I have functional tactics and a set of players I understand and have confidence in it this is the issue that occupies the greatest extent of my time within FM09. I fear that I am both running out of space and steam so I will finish with a set of principles I abide by.

Firstly a managers relationship to his players is absolutely fundamental in all aspects of interaction. It is vital that no matter how subtle this relationship is manifest that this relationship is understood.

Secondly players are absolutely critical in determining the best methods of interacting, and they are prone to changing if not by huge degrees then by small degrees in a situation by situation context.

Thirdly all interaction is an ongoing process whether you like it or not. Not only are teamtalks relative to previous matches, media interaction, condition, morale, performances and the last team talk you gave but they are relative and relevant to long term performances and long term relationships.

Fourthly the game is about results end of story. Players that react badly to your motivational techniques should be sold, sacked, sidelined or systematiclly ignored and abused as much as you deem fit to ensure that you remain the master, the father, the arch enemy and above all the element of greatest respect and deepest fear. It is completely foolish to mollycoddle a player when it will cost you the respect of the dressing room, results and your job.

I dont get your point but it was well written! If your saying that man management in FM could be improved then I agree. The forming of relationships can be the key to success in football, not only between players and managers, but managers and staff also. There have been numbers of managers clearing out the whole backroom team team to bring their own favourites in. In game, that should be an option when you move clubs, perhaps only staff that have you as a favoured person would come with you.

Players cant always be moved when a manager leaves due to their importance to the clubs results, and will mainly command a fee which sometimes cant be met by the next club. The player will have you as a favourite of his but often wont go with the manager.

Respect and man management ability is earned through results inevitably, if you have a world class reputation then the chances are that players will listen to you and you can command more respect. How you react to a certain player, as in real life, depends on the individuals personality. If said player is confrontational then there is more chance of him taking it the wrong way than of someone who is determined and will strive to help out.

At the end of the day, its all relative, but with referance to my first point, this aspect could be improved along with the whole interaction module to make it more detailed and give more options, more reaction etc. How and if this can be done correctly and effectively is another question.

I dont get your point but it was well written! If your saying that man management in FM could be improved then I agree.

Not really. My point was that it is a lot deeper than it first looks. Ofcourse it could be improved.

I find this topic interesting because I find the subject of man management/player interaction very interesting from a management point of view and an FM one. Disappointingly, i find that FM seriously undervalues the significance of man management in their simulation of the game. I understand that this aspect of football may be more difficult to replicate in a game than tactical settings, and they have made attempts, but as yet i don't consider this an equal partner to tactics in the game. Seems though that you may be experiencing this is a deeper way than I have (and admittedly i find it very hard to play long term games...principally because of the lack of depth in player/squad interaction) as in a role playing sense, i feel more like a football tactician than I do a fully fledged football manager. But anyway, I'd be interested to hear your experiences in more depth with regard to the examples you give in you first post, second last paragraph.

I have found that a managers relationship with a player, both in being favoured personell and in day to day morale management, produces a significant effect on both short term reaction to individual events and long term reaction to sustained criticism/praise and longterm performances. After a season of "getting the players on my side" so to speak by encouraging them and praising them I now find that they react less adversely off the pitch and more effectively on the pitch to multiple sustained periods of criticism that are clearly attempts to get them to perform and not any "fair" criticism of them. Criticism and praise are the two most effective team talk weapons a manager has but if you employ them too early in your career you can destroy the dressing room and destroy their influence on players. If you manage the situation so that players respect and listen to you then even rediculous praise and criticism when you are 4-0 down or 4-0 up can have not only a one off effect in producing performances that game, but you can keep it up over a longer period of time.

Not only that but man management is a continual process. Ripping a player to shreds at the first sign of failure may inspire him to a greater performance but he wont like it. The next game you say "you have faith" and this angers him but he cannot dislike you, you get the performance and reaction without the negative consequences, and so you loudly praise him. The next game you state "pick up where you left off!" and this is not only encouragement but a challenge. If he doesnt perform he can expect punishment, if he performs he can expect praise. Players react to this kind of balanced cyclic behaviour, the closer you are to a player the greater his on-field reaction and the lesser his off-field reaction.

I encourage you to try it. Next time you play a few games look for patterns that appear over the course of a few games, and see if following those patterns improves the motivation of your players.

Sorry I had forgotten about this topic until posting in the ‘team talk’ topic made me remember. So a belated thanks for your reply.

What you are saying certainly makes sense from a real life coaching point of view, and should ideally apply well to FM also. I guess I have not put as much focus onto thus area of the game. Perhaps because of too much focus on tactics and also to not often playing any long term games when such relationships would become more apparent.

Your comment about the interaction (praise or criticism) being aimed at getting them to perform rather than to be ‘fair’ I also find an interesting point. This gets me thinking about the situations you often see in the game where you either praise or criticize a player and their reaction seems somewhat at odds with what you think it should be, or where they give contradictory ‘feedback’. Eg they might say that they agree they aren’t playing well, but are disappointed /angry that their performance has been criticized. With this example (and I think using your logic correctly) this would be an indication that your comment was fair/accurate (ie they aren’t playing well), but that you the manager have not developed the relationship with this player where you can ‘get away’ with such a comment. Ie they know they aren’t playing well, but they’re still annoyed about it being pointed out (eg they interpret this as you being ‘too hard’0.

This can also happen the other way around when you praise a player and they say they appreciate your comments, but then their PR says that they “don’t have to do much to earn the manager’s praise”. Again hear your logic holds up I think in that your comment about their performance is accurate, but you have not developed the appropriate relationship to actually get the right reaction to the comment (ie they interpret this as you being ‘too soft’).

Am I on the right wavelength here? And how much consideration should then go onto individual personalities (ie determined/professional VS undetermined/unprofessional) or experience (ie veteran VS youngster). I guess I’m thinking more about ‘off field’ matters here (ie player/media interaction) rather than on-field 9ie team talks), but I’m assuming the ‘logic’ is the same right?

I find the whole "interaction via the media" to be completely at odds in principle with the style of management I admire, but it doesn't seem to have the adverse reactions that actually calling players out in public would have in real life, and seems to emulate the function of office/training ground manager-player interaction. That said I find the whole "next opponent/manager interaction/player interaction via media" to be rather hit and miss that rarely seem to have any predictable positive effect on motivation. I tend to avoid commenting on opponents and managers as much as possible unless they are looking to establish a friendship with me, and I discuss player form with the media purely for the purposes of getting myself listed as favoured personell or to inform a player that he has one match left to convince me he deserves to keep his first team or substitute position.

I find motivation to be one of the most powerful factors in producing performances and results. If you poorly motivate your players you can expect to see inferior performances and results on a consistent basis, and it is likely that atleast some complaints regarding performances, tactics and frustrating gameplay has little to do with the highlighted culprits such as the decision making process of the match engine, but is entireally down to motivation. Motivation alone can be the difference between a 1-0 victory and a 4-0 defeat where all else is equal.

If you have had a great run of results with X tactic but now seem to be really struggling, its probably motivation. If your home form is impervious but away you are a wet paper bag, its probably motivation. If you hammer small teams but get gutted by big sides, its probably motivation. If you cruise to victory in season one with a wall like defence and scoring goals for free, but find yourself shipping goals and being man marked out of the game in season two, its probably motivation. If there are for example ten matches a season where you falter and do badly, 5 will be due to motivation, 2 to selecting the wrong lineup and 3 will be down to requiring a different tactical setup for that specific match in my opinion.

The way I approach man management, morale and motivation is from the perspective that a happy squad is a confident squad is a performing squad. This is definately true in general terms, but if left to their own devices and improperly handled a happy squad will become an overconfident and complacent squad. Generally speaking I find that a happy and confident squad will require a kick up the backside twice a season, usually at the start of the season and then roughly about 2/3rds of the way through. The problem here is that players do not all dip in form and mess around at the same time, and that giving them a firm boot may take 2-3 matches per player. Basicly though the premise is that no manager and no squad can simply be expected to find a niche of brilliant performances and stay there for the rest of the save with the same rapid fire, minimal involvement approach that is acceptable for a run of easy matches when your squad is on fire. There will be atleast one patch per season where a squads own high morale and good performances negatively affects their motivation and brings the house of cards crashing down if left unaddressed.

In general principles motivation and morale are linked quite fundamentally. High morale usually equals reasonably good motivation, which produces decent performances and helps to maintain or increase morale. There is definately a positive and negative "non zero sum game" relationship where good morale equals good motivation and bad morale equals bad motivation. However the relationship is a lot more complex than that, although that factor needs to be understood. Morale also acts as sort of "punishment cap" for motivation and motivation is clearly improved by high discipline and firm treatment. The lower the morale of a player and the more severe the motivational techniques, the more severe the post-match negative consequences for each player, and when going through a sticky patch where you need to be firm you can find yourself staring down the barrel of mass dissent and unpopularity.

With the above statement in mind the game introduces a really neat "trick" so to speak and that is the long and short term power of getting a player to like you. The positive benefits to the entire motivational and man management gameplay system of being listed as a players favoured personell are hard to estimate. Not only will your statements carry greater weight and influence but the negative consequences of your firm and harsh actions will be minimised. This is a situation of vast benefit to the manager, effectively increasing the power of your man management options while reducing their cost. It is however difficult to achieve because it requires that you impress your players and manage them in a style that emulates their playing mentality. In all my saves as manager of Manchester United across all FM games with this system, I have only managed to get Wayne Rooney to list me as favoured personell once. Wayne Rooney is a player that always reacted badly to either criticism or praise while at the same time I thought he consistently underperformed. Now he reacts with vigour to my praise and criticism and because of his determination and desire and enthuisiasm on the football pitch he is now my captain, as well as the player I most regularly and harshly criticise whenever he does not dominate a football match, because quite simply when I criticise him he will go out and dominate a football match.

With regard to your point, dz47, about players "interpreting" my interaction, I operate by the principle that full time teamtalks cancel out the negative consequences of brutal half time teamtalks, and that half time teamtalks are simply vital in every football match. All that matters to me at half time is demanding more from my players through whatever means necessary and usually a brutal half time team talk produces the performances that allow me to lavish praise upon my players at full time. Each player interperates your interaction in their own way but the closer together a squads personalities are, and the more players that list you as favoured personell, the more generic and equal become their reactions to your influence and interaction. My first concern with a new squad or player is to get him to list me as favoured personell because then he fits into my style of management, he responds to my interaction and criticism and praise how I wish and understand it, rather than his own way. He will be upset and motivated when I am critical and he will be happy when I praise him, and the limits at which my criticism becomes intolerable or my praise becomes over elaborate pandering are greatly extended.

I also think that the "PR system" is directly tied to motivation, it seems to me to be the manifestation of motivation (not morale) outside of teamtalks and matches. Clearly some PR issues directly influence morale but they also directly influence motivation. One recent example of PR equaling motivation was in a recent "rivals" match I played where the opposing manager criticised me through the media. My young and up and coming striker that had myself and my club listed as favoured personell/club reacted angrilly to his comments and "wished to prove him wrong". I took him on in the final ten minutes of the match and he lasted 3 minutes before getting sent off for a violent two-footed lunge at an opponent. Obviously I had no opportunity to motivate him as an unused substitute in the 80th minute, and obviously this player was absolutely enraged. This is good example of how man management works in general, but it is an example of poor man management by myself, as I did not recognise the potential for violent play and the hefty penalty that comes with that. A manager of a rival club directly criticised me and a young, aggressive player that had me and my club listed as his favourite attempted to seriously injure one of the opponent players, without any involvement by myself. It's not the ideal event, but it is a great example of the power of man management and personality.

Well, you've clearly given this element of the game some thorough consideration. You're depth of analysis is making me question my previous criticisms of the game with regard to the apparent lack of importance placed on player/team interaction and man management. Perhaps then there isn't actually a 'lack of depth' in this area at all, but moreso that the way it is implemented into the game is somewhat more subtle (for want of a better word) than the way tactics are. Clearly there is depth there if the player decides to make this a focus of their game, in a similar way to the way in which most of us probably tend to focus on tactics. It is probably still possible to get good results with good teams and good tactical knowledge and minimal focus on man management, but more of a focus on man management (with the other factors being constant) are therefore likely to lead to even better results. With this in mind, I'm certainly keen to re-start my game and see if i can make this more of a focus for my own learning and fun!

You mention 'motivation' above quite frequently, and i am wondering how you interpret 'motivation' within the game and how you measure this, as opposed to morale. What i'm thinking here is that while you would of course always want morale high throughout your team, for certain players though high morale (without the desired level of motivation' could lead to those over-confident performances you mention above. I'm not on the game at the moment, but i cannot think of too many areas where motivation (as opposed to morale) can be gauged. So what things do you look for that give you this feedback?

I also find your example with the young striker above quite interesting. What were the factors that you feel you should have considered more closely in order to predict his reaction on the pitch? I ask this because i guess i am yet to develop such a level of 'trust' in the game that the AI/ME computes all the relevant factors to come up with outcome X (ie getting sent off for a bad foul), and that the player is able to make such predictions accurately with the info/feedback they have at their disposal. For example, i could see the above scenario (aggressive player/fired up/wants to prove point) potentially turning out well in the match as well, perhaps with him coming on and scoring the winning goal. You mention Rooney above and he would seem a very good example of this; being he fits that personality type and in such a scenario could be equally likely to come on, take the game by the scruff and score the winning goal; or alternatively flip his lid, go mental and get himself sent off in the first 2 minutes! So I guess what i'm saying is a) i don't currently have the knowledge in this area sufficient to make a truly informed choice about how to motivate this player effectively in the game situation; and b) even if i did have more knowledge, i'm not confident that the effects can be so easily predicted, and that fundamentally the results could go 'either way' with such a player in such a scenario. Clearly this means i don't have the trust in the game that it makes the 'right' decisions with any kind of predictability or consistency. However, I am more than interested to continue this conversation so that you can convince me that such trust is possible and deserved!

With regards to the young Striker I don't think the event was inevitable or calculated prior to the original comment or anything like that, but I should have realised how the events leading up to the match and the player in question in conjuction with his on-pitch motivation would make such a sending off far more likely to occur. I did not reduce his tackling from hard, I didn't even need to play him in the last ten minutes. I thought that with his pace, power and aggression in combination with his high motivation and tired opposition would probably bring him a goal. Instead he got a three match ban.

As for "motivation", I am speaking about the in-match motivation of players, but in-match motivation of players stems from multiple out-of-match and pre-match factors and if you are an astute manager then over time you will begin to see x PR item for y player as an additional increase, or decrease, in motivation for the next match. The trouble with motivation is that although you can judge several influencing factors pre-match, you cannot tell exactly what it will be for all players in every game untill you kick-off. This is where continuity is vital, not only to keep as many influential factors as possible operating the same, but also to observe trends between results, players, opponents, teamtalks so you can accurately judge what kind of situation you are in and the best response to it. Ofcourse continuity is challenged incessantly by different opposition, different pitches, different weather, injuries, suspensions, media interaction, results, performances and not least of all the fact that repetative teamtalks get ignored. In short once you have all the pieces the best you can hope for is a good idea of what is likely to happen. Thing is though if you reach this level with eleven players then you are at a strong level. You might get a couple of bad reactions but the majority of the team should be highly motivated.

You raise two final points, A+B, which are interesting. You can only really learn motivation techniques over the long term, and you can only really predict their results over the long term. This doesn't mean the short term function is a failure or doesn't work or cannot be used, it means you can only be sure of the success of a short term technique by observing the long term success of its use, but even then you cannot be sure if in that specific single instance it was purely down to that one technique. For example you can do X then Y then Z, then A then B then C, then X then Y then Z and so on across a period of months and it produces consistent results over that long term, but in the context of one specific match you can never be completely sure that X will definately work that day, or indeed of it was X that did work. The more you get involved in long term trends and short term experimentation and attention to detail the more you will begin to see how it all fits together, how long term trends and short term actions interact, and how they can best be judged. Just like tactics, very little regarding motivation is a dead certainty in a short term single match context.