Coach Reports

Hello all,

I am after some advice about coach reports.

I have been serving an apprenticeship in the lower leagues in my current career game and I have previously always looked to sign players who my scouts and coaches say are 'leading players' for their division. I have found with these kinds of players in my ranks, that I can achieve lots of success.

I have just moved to a new club in the top flight of Germany who are predicted to come mid-table. Due to a lack of funds, lack of interest from players and various other reasons, the best I have been able to cobble together is a team of players who have approximately 4 stars and are 'good players' for their division.

I was just wondering what I can expect from my current side in view of their average rating of 'good players' from my coaches. I presume that a player who is rated as a 'good player' for his division is generally an individual who will do well but not perform to an outstanding level over the season. Therefore, I figure that my squad should be able to achieve a top half of the table position with a bit of luck but will certainly not be able to challenge the top sides.

There seems to be a bigger gap between the second tier and top flight in FM08, in that it is harder to attract 'leading players' of the division to a smaller club.

Grateful for any views on this.

C.

well i would think it would be the average players in the division. not your gerrards or adebayors. but more divisional team players who wont perform to the top quality standards of a "leading player" every week.

so i am thinking you might be able to make the top half if its not your tatctics

Stevie_G_32201 - thanks for your reply.

I haven't started playing the season yet, I was just seeking advice as to the quality of my squad so that I could tell the board my expectations for the season. They want a respectable position, so I have gone along with that.

Last season the club finished 12th in the league but judging by the talent available that was quite an achievement. The quality of the players was really poor, with two or three stars and most only 'decent' at this level or less.

I have started the rebuild by bringing in the cheapest young talent I could find. Due to lack of funds and other difficulties, I have only managed to bring in 'good' players for this level but they are young so I suspect that some of them will develop into 'leading' stars.

I am managing in Germany and I think perhaps the divisional quality is not particularly very high in the top flight. Hopefully with a good run this season I can establish the side and bring in some more talent next season.

My tactics are pretty watertight, so barring any major setbacks due to injuries etc., I would hope to slightly overachieve with the squad.

I just wondered what people thought about the level of talent in my squad.

Comparing it to the Premiership, if on the one hand you have the Chelseas, Arsenals, Man Utds and Liverpools able to field a starting XI of 'leading stars', then I would guess that Derby County last season were a side who were fielding 'good' and some 'leading stars' at Championship level. In between these, you have midtable clubs who I presume have 'good' players for their level but nothing outstanding. I'm just trying to get my head around the rating system.

I would also say that the top flight appears to be more accurately portrayed on this version of FM. There is a bigger gap in quality between the big sides and I imagine that it will be more challenging to try to build a lesser side into a big force in the division.

Any thoughts on this?

C.

I am by no means an expert, but just a word of caution on over-reliance on coach reports. They are horribly flawed in certain respects. This just happened to me last night:

I have a 20 year old striker sitting in the reserves who I purchased 2 years ago as the scout who found him raved about his potential. I've been training him up and he's getting some U21 caps and performing well. Out of the blue, I get a media transfer speculation message and click to respond to issue a hands off warning. I notice, however, that my ass man thinks I should sell him because he has no future at the club. That seemed odd to me so I checked the coach report. Ass man hates him: 2 star current ability, 2 star potential, 2 overall, look to offload as soon as possible. Just didn't add up. Fired up FMM. Call it cheating; I don't care. I use it for just this type of situation. He has the 5th best CA out of all of my strikers. I carry 4 STs on the first team, so he should be in the reserves. But, the contracts of my 3rd and 4th strikers are running out and I have no plans to resign them, so presumably he'll be on the first team next year. The kicker is that his PA is not only better than all of the strikers on my first team, but every single player on the first team. No future with the club, eh? Offload as soon as possible? I think not! And this ass man has 19 for judging ability and potential.

This one really ticked me off so I cross-referenced the coach report and CA/PA of the entire team. The coach reports were reasonably accurate about 50% of the time. They were certainly better for the first team players, so you should be good if that's what you use them for. However, they were downright awful for the youth squad and reserves. So awful that a 198 PA GK in the youth squad had a 3 star potential. Why, SI why?!?

I will say that for the first team, 4 stars was a pretty good player for my level and 5 was a star, for the most part. The ass man was wrong about a couple of players, but that's reasonable. The team reports, however, were quite accurate. So, there is that.

A coach's JCA and JPA play into his accuracy at giving a coach report. I try to make sure I get an A.M. who is high in both .. I can usually get better JCA/JPA in my coaching staff than in my scouting staff, until I reach the top clubs!

In particular, I've noticed that my JPA 12 AM often overlooks players with high potential, dismissing them as being no more than "decent" .. but my JPA 20 coach is much more likely to spot their potential .. and he also points out other useful information like "Might benefit from being tutored by so-and-so.."

Its worth it, therefore, to hire a coach *purely for JPA* .. and then use the drop-down to select him for the coach reports.

. . .

crouchaldinho - the German Bundesliga has a wider "spread" than the E.P.L.: in other words, there's a bigger gap between the top teams and the relegation fodder. So, I think that a respectable league position is reasonable for the squad you have .. I'd worry most about "gelling", if you've had a lot of turnover .. a squad full of "good" players can really overachieve if they have "would die for each other" .. but if they aren't sure about each other, it can be a miserable season.

. . .

kancit - JPA 20 does not mean "perfect". Your guy made a mistake .. so?

Originally posted by Amaroq:

. . .

kancit - JPA 20 does not mean "perfect". Your guy made a mistake .. so?

I have no problem with the occassional mistake. I make them, so the coaches should too. Out of the entire first team the ass man was accurate within reason on everyone but a couple of players. To me that's accepatable for a 19 JCA/JPA coach.

However, if the coach report is well off the mark on approximately 50% of the reserve and youth squads, then what's the point? That's not a mistake, it's a multitude of mistakes. Might as well toss a coin or consult a tarot deck rather than checking the coach report.

Originally posted by crouchaldinho:

Stevie_G_32201 - thanks for your reply.

I haven't started playing the season yet, I was just seeking advice as to the quality of my squad so that I could tell the board my expectations for the season. They want a respectable position, so I have gone along with that.

Last season the club finished 12th in the league but judging by the talent available that was quite an achievement. The quality of the players was really poor, with two or three stars and most only 'decent' at this level or less.

I have started the rebuild by bringing in the cheapest young talent I could find. Due to lack of funds and other difficulties, I have only managed to bring in 'good' players for this level but they are young so I suspect that some of them will develop into 'leading' stars.

I am managing in Germany and I think perhaps the divisional quality is not particularly very high in the top flight. Hopefully with a good run this season I can establish the side and bring in some more talent next season.

My tactics are pretty watertight, so barring any major setbacks due to injuries etc., I would hope to slightly overachieve with the squad.

I just wondered what people thought about the level of talent in my squad.

Comparing it to the Premiership, if on the one hand you have the Chelseas, Arsenals, Man Utds and Liverpools able to field a starting XI of 'leading stars', then I would guess that Derby County last season were a side who were fielding 'good' and some 'leading stars' at Championship level. In between these, you have midtable clubs who I presume have 'good' players for their level but nothing outstanding. I'm just trying to get my head around the rating system.

I would also say that the top flight appears to be more accurately portrayed on this version of FM. There is a bigger gap in quality between the big sides and I imagine that it will be more challenging to try to build a lesser side into a big force in the division.

Any thoughts on this?

C.

you do know i was messing when i used the tactics joke right? lol

Originally posted by Amaroq:

crouchaldinho - the German Bundesliga has a wider "spread" than the E.P.L.: in other words, there's a bigger gap between the top teams and the relegation fodder. So, I think that a respectable league position is reasonable for the squad you have .. I'd worry most about "gelling", if you've had a lot of turnover .. a squad full of "good" players can really overachieve if they have "would die for each other" .. but if they aren't sure about each other, it can be a miserable season.

Cheers for this Amaroq - the team gelling is indeed going to be a problem. However, I intend to see this season out as a re-building season and hope for mid-table. Hopefully, the gelling will come into play halfway through the season and then, perhaps, results will pick up.

The squad now has plenty of potential, with lots of young prospects, so I am hopefull that the side will progress and challenge for UEFA Cup spot next year, that is if I keep things consistent.

You are right about the Bundesliga - I scouted all of the sides in the division and the sides that are challenging for the title have some real quality, while the mid-table sides look distinctly average and the sides at the bottom are way below the standard. It's going to be a real challenge to build towards a title push in a few seasons.

C.

Yw, crouchaldinho. (That nick has always made me smile, btw!)

I think you're about right in your expectations - it usually takes me four to six months to see a side gel, and the second half of the season goes much better. Pushing up to challenge for the title is going to be real work, though!

. . .

However, if the coach report is well off the mark on approximately 50% of the reserve and youth squads, then what's the point? That's not a mistake, it's a multitude of mistakes. Might as well toss a coin or consult a tarot deck rather than checking the coach report.

.. depends what you're judging them on, kancit.

The background on "Why, SI, why?" is .. because we-the-forum asked for it. The general consensus was that the near-perfect scouting from FM'07 made the long-term game "too easy", because your scouts were basically always correct .. so you-the-player never made mistakes in evaluating long-term talent.

The same holds for your coaching staff - if you had perfect visibility into a player's PA just because he plays for your U-18 side, then the "shotgun approach" would be too effective: sign 100 youths to one-year contracts, get coach reports, and sign long-term contracts for the five or six that have real potential. Lather, rinse, repeat every summer, and in five to eight years you have a world-beater team of "home-grown" youth.

So its much better to have some inaccuracy built in.

The inaccuracy is greater the further a player's CA is from his PA.

The inaccuracy is greater the less playing time a player is getting - and of course, time with the first team counts more than time with the Reserves.

There is inaccuracy based on a players' actual progress - so if you have a PA 198 player who is playing at "too low a level", e.g., he's not learning anything by running out with the U-18s, because he needs competitive football to learn .. then the coach judges him as *not having potential* because he *isn't progressing* .. subtly different, but its an understandable mistake.

The upshot of it is, no, you don't trust your coaches as infallible. You canvass multiple coaches for their opinion .. and you refer back to old scouting reports on the player .. and you judge his progress yourself .. and you make your own judgment.

Its not that I don't empathize with your frustration .. its that I'd rather have the current system than have the game tell me, flawlessly, what needs to be done!

I completely agree that it is much better to have some inaccuracy built in. I don't want perfect scouts or coaches. But, I think that the current system has erred too far in the opposite direction. My ass man's sole job is to judge player's. That is really the only thing that he is particularly good at. I shouldn't have to go the the coach who trains set pieces, say, to get other opinions, especially when that coach has a poor JCA/JPA. I can understand a coach with say 10 JCA getting current ability wrong 50% of the time. Can't really understand that though with a 19 JCA. When I have gone out and gotten coaches who should be top notch at doing certain things, I should be able to trust them to do it right most of the time, with the understanding that they are meant to be replicating real people and will make some mistakes. However, a real ass man who was wrong about players on his own team half the time would be promptly fired.

For the record, the Striker has been with my team for almost 2 and a half years and the 198 PA keeper for almost a year and half. Whether they are playing in the reserves or U19's, that should be more than enough time for the coaching staff to get a reasonably good feel for their abilities.

Also, if a player needs to be at a more competitive level because he is not progressing at his current level, then the coach report should say exactly that. Rather than saying a player has no potential, the coach should say something link, "Joe Blow has great potential, but he is not progressing at his current level. You should consider getting him more time in reserve/first team games to help his development." Wouldn't you expect a real coach to say something like that over just giving a wildly inaccuate star rating for potential?

I don't want the game to give me everything flawlessly, and agree that it is a good thing that it doesn't. But, I do want to be able to trust my staff more often than not, if I have hired good staff. In my real job, if my assistants were as erratic as my FM assistants, I would have to let them go. Thank god, they aren't that bad or I'd never have time to play FM or whine on this board.

BTW, Great UI ideas, Amaroq.

I completely agree with you that the coach report needs to grow: I'd like it to be more complete, more detailed, more informative to me than the scout reports I get. I mean, after all, the scout's only been watching the player on and off for a year or two, the coaches have seen him every day for two and a half years.

A lot of the "hidden" factors should be revealed in the coach reports, even for a fairly middling JCA coach.

I'd really like a "slow reveal" as Dave C described years ago: the longer a coach and a player have been on the same team(s) at the same time, the more detail we get about the players. So if I bring in a perfect 20/20 A.M., his judgments on players are fairly incomplete the first week .. but three years down the line, he's giving me tons of detailed information.

In particular, as you said, JCA should be pretty much infallible at that point. In fact, from what I've read about baseball scouting, JCA should be pretty much infallible even on fairly brief scouting reports: the baseball scouts indicated that for basic skills (throwing, hitting, fielding, baserunning, etc) even a *newly trained* scout (JCA 1?) gets within a half point (on a 2-8 scale) of a scout with twenty years experience when it comes to judging current ability - for things like technique and physical ability.

Mental abilities, on the other hand, ought to be the things it takes a longer time to discover: determination? Influence? Anticipation? These are much harder to gauge! .. those are the ones that, I think, should be most prone to fog-of-war, and especially should be the ones that stay fog-of-war'red after an initial scouting report on a player.

Of course, our coaches should see everything! On the JCA side, anyways.

I'd also like to see (as suggested in the FAO Ter - UI Ideas thread which kancit is referring to) the Coach Report include things like suggested next steps for the player's development, e.g., "He's ready to step up to the Reserves", or "Needs to be loaned out", "Needs regular first-team action", or even "Needs to move to a league with a higher standard of play" ..

JPA, on the other hand, I think its quite reasonable to have a lot of variability on .. and to have significant misjudgment on.

JPA is just a tough one for me to get my head around. Your post got me to thinking about it in baseball terms because that is the sport I've followed religiously since birth. I just can't translate what really happens in baseball scouting and player development to FM. That's not because the sports are too dissimilar, but because baseball involves real players and FM doesn't. These aren't my end all, be all thoughts, but they are pretty close I suppose. I see two real alternatives:

1) Leave it the way it is. PA is a fixed number. Some players will reach it, some won't. The inaccuracy of your scouts and coaches in someway makes up for the fact that in real life some players with great potential just can't put it together for some reason or other.

2) All players should have an upper level PA cap, but their actual PA will rise and fall over time based upon what happens to them. That is to say, regen X comes into the world with a PA of 175. He will reach that, if he gets the right training and stays healthy. But, let's let's say he has several massive injuries, his PA might drop to 160. The best scouts and coaches should be able at any time to watch a player and determine what his current PA is, but they shouldn't know whether a player will actually reach it. This is what actually does happen in the real world, more or less. Take the Major League Baseball draft, for example. There is generally a fairly good consensus on the potential of most players in the draft. Everyone knows who has the potential to be good and who doesn't, within reason and especially for the first few rounds. It's a crap shoot, however, because no one knows who will actually fully develop their potential. Some will, some won't. Now that's not to say that some scouts and even whole teams occassionally get things completely wrong. It happens. I am a Kansas City Royals fan, I know this. For you Brits, think of the Royals as the Derby of baseball. We've been a laughingstock for 20 years running. Things are starting to look up though.

Personally, I like option 2 better and would love to see it implemented in a much more sophisticated manner than I have presented. I think it more accurately reflects what happens in the real world, which is usually a good thing for FM.