Player unhappy about lack of first team football

I have a player on my Liverpool team in 2022, that is unhappy about lack of first team football, but hes played in 17 out of my 24 games all season (one of those games was a carling cup game as well!)

I dont mind that much, as my left hand side has plently of quality anyway, I just thought it was a bit strange that a player that had played in 71% of the games this season (or 74% of them excluding carling cup game).

That sounds pretty regular first team football to me! .

What is this players squad status? If he is a key player then he may expect to play more games.

I had a player who wasn't on key status and he was unhappy after playing the majority of games as but if went away soon after.

What is this players squad status? If he is a key player then he may expect to play more games.

I had a player who wasn't on key status and he was unhappy after playing the majority of games as but if went away soon after.

Rotation.

Ah well, I'll get around 30m for him easy, dont mind that much

Try changing his status to first team. Sometimes it seems that players care more about how often you say you're going to play them than how often you actually do so.

Dropped him for one game and he became unhappy again. He must of been hired by Man Citeh to sabotage my squad harmony

Dropped him for one game and he became unhappy again...

When I get this message, I start watching the player's Form page off his profile's actions menu. There is a pareto chart on top giving his form over the last 20 matches, and the top line on the top right section that says he's played x of last 20 matches. I start carefully managing his starts to raise the ratio of starts to benches.

For example, says he's appeared in 15 of the last 20 matches, and he wants more first team. First off, I'd sell the guy in a heartbeat if he wasn't by far the best at his position on my roster. But, if I had to keep him, I wouldn't bench him until he was "happy" again plus two matches. If he became happy at 17 of the last 20, I wouldn't bench him until he had 19 of the last 20.

Here's where the chart on the left side becomes interesting. Note that "the last 20" means just that. It may be a match he played in was 20 matches ago. He plays today, and his x of the last 20 won't change, because that played-in match just rolled off the back. You gotta keep him going until a match he didn't play in rolls off the back to raise his x of 20. So, sometimes he'll have to play in 6, 8, 10, or more matches just to go from 15-of-20 to 17-of-20, and now he's finally happy. Rest him a match and a played-in match rolls off, and he's at 16-of-20, and unhappy again. You can't bench him until a benched-match rolls off the back so his last-20 doesn't change, or until he has enough played-in matches that losing one won't make him unhappy again.

Crymanitly, my curse has struck again. I have an amazing gift for taking a relatively simple concept and making it excruciatingly complex..... :o I've been told I should write software manuals.

I reckon I'll just sell him, will boost the bank balance a fair bit. He's not worth the trouble.

He's disrupted my squad harmony a fair bit.

And as I type this, my captain just got sent off for kicking a player. Happy days

What bothers the everliving **** out of me is that if I have a deep enough squad I like to play with two squads, one that plays saturdays/sundays, and another (a 'B' team so to speak) that plays wednesdays. Has nothing to do with which one is more important than the other, because the A team plays the local league and a few local cup ties that fall on the weekend, while the B team is the local cup and european cup team. Both have the same level of importance to me, but this is something I can't convey to my players.

I've had players (with status set as "first team") who have started in every-single-damn-cup match, every tuesday/wednesday, but they still "think they should be a first team regular" because a couple of times I opted for starting a youth on a sunday for a very easy game against a bottom of the table team.

I really wish for 2010 this would be looked into and players would look at the overall number of games played instead of just the local tournament. Or at the very least give us the option, when we're signing a new player, to specify in the contract "you will be playing the local tournament" or "you will be playing the cups". It's very, very annoying and it has happened in every league I ever played.

I have a regen with fantastic potential who's coming along well but isn't quite ready to play full-time yet; I've got big plans for him, but he's not a first-team guy yet. When I sold off an MC and replaced him with a better one (this being a "right now" solution, the regen being a "long-term" solution), the regen got cranky. I found that listing him for loan, signing him to a longer contract, and then actually loaning him out fixed the problem; he got first team experience, I got a happy regen.

At some point in there, I also became one of his "Favored Personnel"; whether or not that had anything to do with anything I can't tell.

My backup keepers get real peeved off at me for not playing them but they've got to understand that they're back up to my first choice who's playing extremely well.

the way this worked (or didn't) in FM2006 infuriated me - I once had a young lad who was slightly concerned at the beginning of the season, went on to play 32 of 38 league games (cementing himself as Italy's number one centre back, worth £12m, at age 21, I should add), then left on a free because he wanted to be a first team regular! Rar!

As long as you never leave a player out for more than 2 games in a row, you're usually ok.