Managers and CA

I am raising this issue, as in my game (in 2040 now) the most decorated manager (ever perhaps) is Steven Pienaar. Still only in his fifties (I believe) he has won more than 20 championships plus a couple of cups as well. Not small championships mind. He has won the Bundesliga over and over again with HSV, and since joining Arsenal he currently holds a streak of 5 consecutive titles in the Premiership, with his team seemingly unbeatable to other AI teams. Quite an impressive career, and he still has quite a few years in him. Now looking at his profile, he doesn't exactly look like a top manager, so out of curiosity (and jealousy, true) I got the FM RTE to look at his CA and PA, and to my surprise they're both at 110!

Now, I don't know if it's just me, but I can't believe such a poor manager can go all the way and have such an insanely good career. He should struggle to even gain one major trophy... wait no, he shouldn't even come close to the trophies he's got. I think the game should demand much more from managers than merely the right tactical preferences. Such a bad manager should have serious trouble motivating major teams, managing their players and adjusting his tactics to suit the opposition.

It's not even the trophies, it's the fact his teams pretty much clears the table every season, without being much better than many other sides.

Don't hate on Steven Pienaar, bro . Perhaps you're just a bit jealous of his success

He's right though, a managers ability should have a greater impact on how well the team performs.

He's right though, a managers ability should have a greater impact on how well the team performs.

As the old saying goes, "There is no 'I' in 'team'"

A poor manager with rock-solid staff supporting him should theoretically still get positive results. Similarly, a fantastic squad shouldn't be dampened too greatly by a poor manager...Man Utd or Chelsea aren't going to become relegation battlers just because Fergie or Ancelotti has left and been replaced by John Barnes, for instance, though they may find it a bit more challenging to win the title. At the opposite end of the spectrum, even the best of managers can only have so much of an impact on a poor squad. If a team like Hull or Burnley had Jose Mourinho as their manager, they'd probably still be in a relegation battle...the manager might be able to make smart decisions that help the team to eke out those few points they'd need to save themselves from the drop, but they're still going to be in the bottom half of the table.

As the old saying goes, "There is no 'I' in 'team'"

A poor manager with rock-solid staff supporting him should theoretically still get positive results. Similarly, a fantastic squad shouldn't be dampened too greatly by a poor manager...Man Utd or Chelsea aren't going to become relegation battlers just because Fergie or Ancelotti has left and been replaced by John Barnes, for instance, though they may find it a bit more challenging to win the title. At the opposite end of the spectrum, even the best of managers can only have so much of an impact on a poor squad. If a team like Hull or Burnley had Jose Mourinho as their manager, they'd probably still be in a relegation battle...the manager might be able to make smart decisions that help the team to eke out those few points they'd need to save themselves from the drop, but they're still going to be in the bottom half of the table.

I agree with what your saying but to say a manager with 110 CA and PA can take big sides to numerous trophies is ridiculous. Often when challenging for big trophies the manager can make a huge difference and you can't throw an average manager in charge of a top side and expect that he will win trophy after trophy, even if he had the best team and staff in the world.

We know he has CA of 110, can we get a screenie of his coaching stats?

What the attributes of the manager have to do with the performance of the team? only coach wise in my opinion

What the attributes of the manager have to do with the performance of the team? only coach wise in my opinion

Tactical knowledge, Motivating, Man management, Discipline, Determination, e.t.c.

How do these not relate to how well a manager should perform?

As an Evertonian, I did find the idea of SP being a manager. The more I think about it though, he does have a major impact on the team when he plays. I firmly believe this is down to his overall blokeness and it inspires. Hence why could he not win a load of titles. Perhaps not the OP's stated scale. Hell who says you have to be a Genius to be a Genius.

As the old saying goes, "There is no 'I' in 'team'"

A poor manager with rock-solid staff supporting him should theoretically still get positive results. Similarly, a fantastic squad shouldn't be dampened too greatly by a poor manager...Man Utd or Chelsea aren't going to become relegation battlers just because Fergie or Ancelotti has left and been replaced by John Barnes, for instance, though they may find it a bit more challenging to win the title. At the opposite end of the spectrum, even the best of managers can only have so much of an impact on a poor squad. If a team like Hull or Burnley had Jose Mourinho as their manager, they'd probably still be in a relegation battle...the manager might be able to make smart decisions that help the team to eke out those few points they'd need to save themselves from the drop, but they're still going to be in the bottom half of the table.

Yes but how can Burnley (managed by Owen Coyle) and Fulham (Joe Kinnear) have qualified for the Champion's League when having average staff while Liverpool (Juande Ramos/Benitez) are languishing in 11th and have done for the past few seasons? I would also point out Sunderland are also 3rd, but they have Simon Grayson so that's understandable.

As the old saying goes, "There is no 'I' in 'team'"

A poor manager with rock-solid staff supporting him should theoretically still get positive results. Similarly, a fantastic squad shouldn't be dampened too greatly by a poor manager...Man Utd or Chelsea aren't going to become relegation battlers just because Fergie or Ancelotti has left and been replaced by John Barnes, for instance, though they may find it a bit more challenging to win the title. At the opposite end of the spectrum, even the best of managers can only have so much of an impact on a poor squad. If a team like Hull or Burnley had Jose Mourinho as their manager, they'd probably still be in a relegation battle...the manager might be able to make smart decisions that help the team to eke out those few points they'd need to save themselves from the drop, but they're still going to be in the bottom half of the table.

Well, if the squad is fantastic, then yes a lot of managers might be able to squeeze some results from them, but winning trophies over and over again with a seemingly unbeatable team takes a great manager as well, a 110 CA manager shouldn't be able to. In fact Arsenal play a 3-4-3 in my game, which perhaps should make it even harder, as it leaves a lot of room at the back. It's dissapointing that AI teams have major troubles gaining results against such a manager/formation.

As an Evertonian, I did find the idea of SP being a manager. The more I think about it though, he does have a major impact on the team when he plays. I firmly believe this is down to his overall blokeness and it inspires. Hence why could he not win a load of titles. Perhaps not the OP's stated scale. Hell who says you have to be a Genius to be a Genius.

I'm not saying he couldn't win titles, if he turned out to be a good manager. He is however at the level of a League 1 manager, so imo should have major troubles managing one of the world's best teams.

We know he has CA of 110, can we get a screenie of his coaching stats?

with 3 tactical knowledge, he ought to really struggle against half-decent tacticians, let alone brilliant ones.

Hope I look that good at 57.

As much as I like the man... I have too agree with you, with those stats, I wouldn't even have him as a coach

Out of curiosity, have you checked the stats of his rival managers

Could be, while not being that good, the game has ended up with no managers being better as I've noticed most players turned staff tend to be poor anyway

Case in point why CA and PA are hidden, it clouds people's judgement, Pienaar could quite simply be motivating his players whilst his assistant manager is organising the team and giving them a solid tactical base.

Case in point why CA and PA are hidden, it clouds people's judgement, Pienaar could quite simply be motivating his players whilst his assistant manager is organising the team and giving them a solid tactical base.

Really? Your going to stick with that? CA and PA definently cloud people judgement but with such a low CA it really shouldn't be the case that he can win so many major trophies. What manager would be able to build such a solid careeer by always relying on their ass man for the teams tactics? Eventually an ass man would be like "i'm the one doing all the hard stuff, I should be manager".

Really? Your going to stick with that? CA and PA definently cloud people judgement but with such a low CA it really shouldn't be the case that he can win so many major trophies. What manager would be able to build such a solid careeer by always relying on their ass man for the teams tactics? Eventually an ass man would be like "i'm the one doing all the hard stuff, I should be manager".

I can give you a very good example, Carlos Quieroz. He oversaw a major change in tactics at Manchester United as assistant manager then left to be a manager and isnt exactly doing a good job. Some people are born to lead, some people are not I guess. So yes I am going to stick to that.

Look at his man management and motivation though! If he's got good staff with knowledge in the areas he is lacking then he could easily get to the top. Look at all the complaints you see about team talks and press stuff having too much impact. Pienaar has obviously got those things licked.

Plz show the stats of Pienaar's Ass Man.

He'll have his players fired up for every match, and will get the best out of them. If he has a assistant or even a coach with great tactical knowledge, he's made as a manager.

I can give you a very good example, Carlos Quieroz. He oversaw a major change in tactics at Manchester United as assistant manager then left to be a manager and isnt exactly doing a good job. Some people are born to lead, some people are not I guess. So yes I am going to stick to that.

That's not the same. Carlos Queiroz was good enough to be ass man, but obviously not as good as a manager. If anything, that just backs up the whole point. Pienaar has very good motivation and man management, but very poor tactical knowlede, so like Quieroz, he should struggle as a manager.

He'll have his players fired up for every match, and will get the best out of them. If he has a assistant or even a coach with great tactical knowledge, he's made as a manager.

Well, I agree that it's not all up to the manager, and having a great coaching team and such will help him along. But i struggle to see how a manager with that low knowledge can rack up title after title with differing teams mind. It's not like he's had the same staff all along. And looking at it differently, why would Arsenal get a manager that's that poor tactically and has his staff handling all of that. Assuming that's what happens.

That's not the same. Carlos Queiroz was good enough to be ass man, but obviously not as good as a manager. If anything, that just backs up the whole point. Pienaar has very good motivation and man management, but very poor tactical knowlede, so like Quieroz, he should struggle as a manager.

In my opinion that example is valid at the point made by the person who I directed that example at. Nonetheless the point still stands, it is completely feasible for this to occur and the game does not need to "fix" anything again entirely in my opinion.

Personally I tihnk this is correct. Theres only so much influence a manager can have over a team, so better players will always win through. It seems he's just been lucky with teams he has managed, and I am sure his amazing history of wins will make him seem like a big manager to any player and motivate them to play.

Personally I tihnk this is correct. Theres only so much influence a manager can have over a team, so better players will always win through. It seems he's just been lucky with teams he has managed, and I am sure his amazing history of wins will make him seem like a big manager to any player and motivate them to play.

Well how about when he starts his career? He doesn't have the impressive career to motivate the players.

I still maintain that any tactically strong manager would have few difficulties gaining points against a 3-4-3 team with a manager this tactically bad.

And looking through the rest of their staff, Ass. Man Bobby Convey has tactical knowledge 6, while their "best" coach, a youth coach that is, has 14.

I can see the point, that maybe the problem is, that the rest of the AI managers in the league are rubbish as well, so maybe the clubs should be better at "scouting" managers.

I like the amount of people who don't think that the quality of the manager has that big an effect on the quality of the team... on Football Manager

Well how about when he starts his career? He doesn't have the impressive career to motivate the players.

I still maintain that any tactically strong manager would have few difficulties gaining points against a 3-4-3 team with a manager this tactically bad.

And looking through the rest of their staff, Ass. Man Bobby Convey has tactical knowledge 6, while their "best" coach, a youth coach that is, has 14.

I can see the point, that maybe the problem is, that the rest of the AI managers in the league are rubbish as well, so maybe the clubs should be better at "scouting" managers.

He has the impressive playing career, plus he also already has the stats to motivate people, it is clear that people are going to disagree on this issue though

I like the amount of people who don't think that the quality of the manager has that big an effect on the quality of the team... on Football Manager

I like the fact that you obviously are not very aware of the stats he has.

He is much like Keegan, great motivater crap tactician.

I like the fact that you obviously are not very aware of the stats he has.

He is much like Keegan, great motivater crap tactician.

No, you've badly misunderstood me. I find it funny that elsewhere in the thread, it was argued that it doesn't matter how good the manager is, a good team will do well and a bad team will do badly. I'm not making any comments at all on the specific case of Pienaar, if I'm honest his stats don't look that bad.

No, you've badly misunderstood me. I find it funny that elsewhere in the thread, it was argued that it doesn't matter how good the manager is, a good team will do well and a bad team will do badly. I'm not making any comments at all on the specific case of Pienaar, if I'm honest his stats don't look that bad.

Sorry man re-reading what you said I definatley misinterpreted it silly me, its the sleep deprevation I tell ya!

He has the impressive playing career, plus he also already has the stats to motivate people, it is clear that people are going to disagree on this issue though

His career was allright i guess, not a world beater though. I don't think he started out with those stats, he would have had to have reached his full potential then. Well yes, obviously some of us disagree, that's the way it'll always be

I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the fact, that a 110 CA manager ranks among the best managers of all times.

His career was allright i guess, not a world beater though. I don't think he started out with those stats, he would have had to have reached his full potential then. Well yes, obviously some of us disagree, that's the way it'll always be

I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the fact, that a 110 CA manager ranks among the best managers of all times.

I understand why you would be a little confused as to why but that is how the game works ah well thats FM for you..

I understand why you would be a little confused as to why but that is how the game works ah well thats FM for you..

Hmm, well, I know it's merely knowing his CA and PA that throws me off, but I still find it weird, that players need much higher CA to compete at top level, whereas managers apparently don't.

Hmm, well, I know it's merely knowing his CA and PA that throws me off, but I still find it weird, that players need much higher CA to compete at top level, whereas managers apparently don't.

Quite true, however certain players who do not have the greatest CA can still rip up the best leagues due to the distribution of these stats.

Quite true, however certain players who do not have the greatest CA can still rip up the best leagues due to the distribution of these stats.

Take two players, one that has a CA of 150 and one with a CA of 180 who play in the same position. The player with a CA of 150 can definently be a better performer than the other player if his stats are distributed better for that position. However take a player with 110 CA who has good stat distribution for their position and see if they can outperform a player with a CA of 180.

CA doesn't mean everything and that is why its hidden, so that people don't just say he has the better CA so he must be the better player. Obviously it doesn't work like that but you still have to have a decent level of CA to be a good player or manager, so why is it a manager with a CA of 110 can win so many trophies. Look at the top managers in the world now and see what their CA or PA ratings are in the database and see if any of them have around 110 CA.

Take two players, one that has a CA of 150 and one with a CA of 180 who play in the same position. The player with a CA of 150 can definently be a better performer than the other player if his stats are distributed better for that position. However take a player with 110 CA who has good stat distribution for their position and see if they can outperform a player with a CA of 180.

CA doesn't mean everything and that is why its hidden, so that people don't just say he has the better CA so he must be the better player. Obviously it doesn't work like that but you still have to have a decent level of CA to be a good player or manager, so why is it a manager with a CA of 110 can win so many trophies. Look at the top managers in the world now and see what their CA or PA ratings are in the database and see if any of them have around 110 CA.

Here is the key issue, one guy has showed this issue with one player.

Now aside from that it is perfectly feasible if you just look at his stat distribution.

Here is the key issue, one guy has showed this issue with one player.

Now aside from that it is perfectly feasible if you just look at his stat distribution.

No its not, i can't understand how this can be viewed as realistic. He has no tactical knowledge and there is no way he could get away with relying on the various staff members he's had at different clubs.

Besides that lets look at it in terms of the game. There have been so many times on these forums when people have ranted about problems with the game when it often turns out to be tactical errors or other mistakes made by the person playing. Now i know your ass man can do so much for you in the game but he cannot create all your tactic so am i supposed to believe that we can't use our assistant managers for that but the AI can? and they can become a world class manager by relying on their staff?

Interesting thread, Roo.

I performed a wee experiment in one of my saves recently: I decreased Tony Mowbray's PA and CA to 1, set his reputation to 500 (out of 10,000), set his managerial attributes to 1, and I reconfigured his tactical and personality attributes to 1, too. I also did the same for Mark Venus, Celtic's assistant manager in the game, and Neil Lennon, Celtic's first team coach.

What happened? Well, I currently don't have the game loaded up but I believe they did relatively well and eventually won the Scottish Premier League. I didn't tamper with the attributes of the management team of any of the other teams in the SPL.

I need to load the game up tomorrow to clarify that I'm remembering the outcome of the experiment correctly, i.e. that Celtic did indeed win the league despite having the worst manager, assistant manager and 1st team coach in the entire game. I know for certain, however, that they performed much better than I'd expected given the changes I made.

All done with FMRTE, of course.

Edit - I wasn't managing in the SPL at the time (CCC, I believe) and it should be noted that their attributes started to increase over time to values like 2 or 3. I didn't readjust them. So that will have a bearing on the outcome of the experiment, as I'm sure many other factors will too.

Edit 2 - The detail level for the SPL and all Scottish competitions Celtic were eligible to compete in were set to full.

Interesting thread, Roo.

I performed a wee experiment in one of my saves recently: I decreased Tony Mowbray's PA and CA to 1, set his reputation to 500 (out of 10,000), set his managerial attributes to 1, and I reconfigured his tactical and personality attributes to 1, too. I also did the same for Mark Venus, Celtic's assistant manager in the game, and Neil Lennon, Celtic's first team coach.

What happened? Well, I currently don't have the game loaded up but I believe they did relatively well and eventually won the Scottish Premier League. I didn't tamper with the attributes of the management team of any of the other teams in the SPL.

I need to load the game up tomorrow to clarify that I'm remembering the outcome of the experiment correctly, i.e. that Celtic did indeed win the league despite having the worst manager, assistant manager and 1st team coach in the entire game. I know for certain, however, that they performed much better than I'd expected given the changes I made.

All done with FMRTE, of course.

There you go someone with the intelligence to test this out, now does it seem unrealistic?

I've never noticed that teams with top managers are any more likely to inspire their tem in first half or after half time. Seems pretty random so I'm not too surprised. I'm sure teams pretty much do the same thing when behind/ahead going into the last x minutes too. can't imagine it's a priority of SI to get average/bad managers to tell their team to do things that are really stupid.

There you go someone with the intelligence to test this out, now does it seem unrealistic?

If the players are good then its no real surprise. I am way to tired to eloborate with a quality example, but I think you will find bad manager good team = pretty good ala KEEGAN.

If the players are good then its no real surprise. I am way to tired to eloborate with a quality example, but I think you will find bad manager good team = pretty good ala KEEGAN.

Not five time premier league winning, almost unbeatable Arsenal though. You cannot have an average manager achieve what the likes of Ferguson and Wenger do irl. Look at the experiment a few posts above, the worst manager, ass man and first team coach in the world should not be able to win a good european league. It doesn't make sense.

If you want examples, look at Ramos. Great record in Spain but he comes to england to manage Tottenham and how much of an impact does he have? He has them bottom of the league halfway through the season, gets fired and then Redknapp comes in and stages and incredible revival. Now i don't know if many of the other staff changed in that time but it seems like both managers in that example had dramatic impacts.

I think a lot of managers are capped at PA 130 (take a look at how many there are! There's tons) and managers don't have really much of an effect on a team. I do think it needs to change.

As the old saying goes, "There is no 'I' in 'team'"

There may not be an 'I' in team, but there are 5 in Individual Brilliance.

Not five time premier league winning, almost unbeatable Arsenal though. You cannot have an average manager achieve what the likes of Ferguson and Wenger do irl. Look at the experiment a few posts above, the worst manager, ass man and first team coach in the world should not be able to win a good european league. It doesn't make sense.

If you want examples, look at Ramos. Great record in Spain but he comes to england to manage Tottenham and how much of an impact does he have? He has them bottom of the league halfway through the season, gets fired and then Redknapp comes in and stages and incredible revival. Now i don't know if many of the other staff changed in that time but it seems like both managers in that example had dramatic impacts.

Guardiola, the Barca coach could be replaced by me and they would struggle to not win the league. If Pienaar is taking relegation candidates to winning the league then yes, issue or he is using the corner cheat if not then no problem in my eyes.

Guardiola, the Barca coach could be replaced by me and they would struggle to not win the league. If Pienaar is taking relegation candidates to winning the league then yes, issue or he is using the corner cheat if not then no problem in my eyes.

If he was winning the odd trophy i wouldn't mind but the fact is he has built Arsenal to be the strongest team in that particular game winning trophy after trophy which is beyond his capabilities.

If barca hired you they would lose nearly every game. No offence but whilst they may set a certain type of play there are many good managers who have failed there and a manager would still need to be reenforcing the style of play on the team, and considering the quality of there play it would take a top tactician to understand it and communicate it to the players in the best possible way.

Here are some screenshots from the experiment I did with Tony Mowbray and Walter Smith in the SPL, season 2009/2010. Remember I edited them at the start of that season and the screenshots I've taken today are from September 2010, so their attributes and reputations have changed since then. I did not change their attributes, etc following the initial modifications I made.

Tony Mowbray

I forgot that I had edited Walter Smith in order to increase the disparity between their attributes. I wanted WS to be one of the best managers in the game and TM to be one of the worst.

The end of season league table. Celtic won the league by 1 point.

Current Celtic squad

Continued from above...

Current Rangers Squad

Celtic fixtures 2009/2010

Remember that the league was set to full detail and that I did not modify the managers or coaching staff of any other team in the league. All competitions Celtic were competing in were set to full detail. I was not managing in the SPL at the time.

I don't know what this demonstrates. Perhaps it was a meaningless endeavour. I'm sure there are myriad factors that I can't account for that have a bearing on the outcome of a team's performance over an entire season. However, I was still surprised that Celtic won the league considering that their manager, their ass man and their 1st team coach were among the worst coaching staff in the game while Walter Smith was among the best managers in the game.

Going to do some more experimentation.

Did you drop the Mowbray's reputation as well?

Yeah. I decreased Tony Mowbray's PA and CA to 1, set his reputations to 500 (out of 10,000), set his managerial attributes to 1, and I reconfigured his tactical and personality attributes to 1, too. I also did the same for Mark Venus, Celtic's assistant manager in the game, and Neil Lennon, Celtic's first team coach.

But it appears that his reputation amended itself to a value greater than 500.

Cheers

Edit - Just checked the value of his reps on FMRTE. It's now September 2010 and his reputations are as follows:

Home - 5035 out of 10,000

Current - 5070

World - 3328

Walter Smith's current reputations are as follows:

Home - 8005

Current - 7981

World - 6463

I only asked because I have a feeling reputation still plays too much of a role in some areas of the game

Would you be up for running your experiment a couple of times and see if the results are still showing the same?

It's possible this run might of been a fluke (though unlikely I'd agree)

Interesting experiment though.