Condition - Does it need an overhaul?

Currently the condition of players is very much a clear indication of where a player is at, but I feel it is horribly off the mark. Part time players can get to 100% just like a premiership footballer training in the best facilities daily, who is also on the same footing as a player in the lower leagues who are using lesser facilities. The game would allow for fitness (natural fitness, training facilities, schedules) to play a much greater roll and be much more dynamic.

If 100% is to represent a persons absolute peak, the fittest he can be where everything is at its best then this shouldn't be available to players in lower levels unless they have extremely high natural fitness, it also shouldn't be available to players who are unable to train on a regular basis.

Training 2 - 3 times a week for a couple of hours in the evening should mean that the person is pretty fit, but of their overall potential? Probably 60 - 70% for especially big games you could ask the players to come in more days a few weeks before (like some non-league teams will do for big cup games) and this would bump fitness up a bit more. Championship footballers would probably only be around 90% in most cases except for at the teams who really do have better facilities or better fitness coaches. The same does extend to premiership clubs as well though, and perhaps it could be something that adds a true dynamic to the game where the better your fitness coaches and better your facilities the difference really does show through.

With Stoke one of the biggest things that makes a difference is the players fitness, pre-season training genuinely consists of running up as steep an Austrian hillside Tony Pulis can find in the morning, and in the afternoon? They cycle up it. Ricardo Fuller was unable to pass a medical before he came to Stoke under the fitness staff Redknapp had with him at Southampton, yet before his unfortunate injury recently he was fit enough to play week in - week out in the premiership. Fitness and conditioning is very much a cosmetic aspect of the game at the moment. It is possible to have your players play Saturday, Wednesday, Saturday without any real negative consequences, you just give them a rest from training - the game time still keeps their skills sharp, missing training has no negative effects on their long term fitness. On the game with Stoke I play Ryan Shawcross in around 60 games a season to no ill-consequence for the amount of training he misses as a result of letting him recover to above 95% for each game.

It could add so much more meaningful depth to the game. If you find a wonderkid in the lower leagues of Africa you can sign him but his fitness just won't be up to standard. If you have to spend time putting him on a regime that gets him upto speed with top flight players this is far more genuine than "severely lacking match fitness" at the start of the window to being in superb condition 2 weeks later. This is a lot of text probably easily losing my point in the myriad of words though so to outline below this is what I think would be more genuine.

Non League part time player: 60% condition

Blue Square/League 2 Level: 70 - 75% condition

League 1: 75% - 80% condition

Championship: 85 - 90% condition

Premiership: 90 - 95% condition

Teams with great fitness coaches/facilities: 95 - 100% condition

Some sides like West ham recently have been in the top flight, but their players haven't been all that fit, Sunderland seem like another of those sides where something isn't quite bringing enough out of them. Some teams are fit enough to keep going for the full 90, some aren't. I understand players of lesser ability have their condition relative, but it takes a lot of training to get to your peak and it could possibly allow for further alterations down the line. Players who were great could still have some good stats without losing it all but their lack of fitness renders it much less effective etc.

So in League 1 they should only have maximum of 75-80% condition because they may not have the best facilities or the best coaches and may not have the best natural fitness levels? Sorry, but no. I don't agree with that at all. Who are you or anyone else to know a players absolute peak of fitness? Why shouldn't players in League 1 be able to have 100% fitness? If they're 100% fit, they get played, that goes for real life too. I don't see League 1 players huffing and puffing and struggling in real life because they don't have the best facilities or coaches, I don't see them struggling for fitness because they're at a League 1 club. If a player is at his own personal maximum fitness, that's going to be 100%, because that's 100% of his personal fitness, condition. Being in a lower division or not having the best coaches isn't going to mean that a player is going to have far lower maximum fitness levels than those in the higher leagues, because every single player has a different maximum fitness level. To basically say that in League 1 you'd have to pick a team with a condition of no more than 80% is just ridiculous in my opinion. Can you imagine starting a League 2 game where none of your players can have more than 75% condition? By full time, especially in a difficult game, their condition would be likely somewhere between 20-40%, which is ridiculous. Teams from lower leagues get penalised enough as it is by having players that aren't as good, so especially against say a PL team, forcing them to also have far lower fitness than a PL team as well as the ability difference would make getting anything against the PL team ridiculously difficult, more so than it should be.

I don't agree with this either. Instead of reducing maximum fitness % levels for players in lower leagues or whose club has poor training facilities etc, it would be better to show the hidden information about fitness that is already there.

If your club has the best training facilities and 5-star coaches who push their players on high workloads, they will lose less condition % in a match. Your coaches will also point out before the season starts that your team are the most fit in the league. This is hidden information in the game. Revealing it to us would entail exactly what you want.

I don't think it's exactly hidden: it's probably just decided by the team's average Natural Fitness and/or Stamina, both of which are visible.

Anyway, fitness is relative, not absolute, as it should be. My tireless defensive midfielder with high scores in the above attribute is tougher on 100% than your 16 year-old regen goalkeeper in League Two.

Indeed there is some factors in but as I said it would need an overhaul to be more intuitive. League One players in general aren't as fit as premier league, bundesliga etc players. Clubs at the top spend more money on this area of the game than teams in lower levels do on transfers. If you line average men up:

Player A has a diet tailored to his needs, any supplements that are legal provided by the club, the best recovery treatments (hydrotherapy pools etc) and trains daily.

Player B who does mostly the same but has a bit more of a generic diet, is still more likely to go out on the weekend and have a few more beers and doesn't have the best recovery equipment available.

Player C trains a few times a week but at really poor quality facilities, thier diets have little input from the club.

To use an example from Stoke City of this: John Walters. Now Walters is playing comfortably in the premiership and europa league, and as Stoke researcher the main asset is the blokes fitness, he was lazy as a lad and didn't work hard or apply himself (self admitted), slipped down to league 2. Once there he realised prospects were pretty grim and began applying himself again, working harder on his training and his ability was there all along. As Player C he would have about 70 - 80CA. He moves and becomes Player B at Ipswich, still got the same skill but the training is more regimented, more focused there is better professionals on hand to control it, this got him up to around 112 CA I think when he joined Stoke. He came in last season and was our joint top goalscorer with Jones, he got upped in January and it still wasn't enough to make him actually feature in a premiership side under the AI. So he's a first team player at Stoke, but not good enough in game to play because of the way a players ability is so heavily reliant upon his CA than his condition. There have been numerous examples of players like this over the years who were good enough all along, but a lack of good training often saw the slip through like Michael Turner as another example.

With FM the main difference between leagues is the CA, it is impossible that a player at 23/24 will be in the lower leagues and be able to facilitate a rise up the leagues through hardwork and getting fitter. The difference between the top end of the championship and the bottom end of the premiership isn't much, but you load up the FM database. Top championship sides (and often the promoted 3) are usually 15 - 20 points of CA behind the relegated sides when looking at the average of the team) when FM12 comes out you'll be able to check exact gaps for yourselves.

The teams would be on a relatively even footing, but if you were serious about it and were willing to or had a board that allowed you to invest in improving the training side of the game you could really get noticable differences from taking players on full time. Hiring full time fitness coaches, improving training facilities. Even in the same league its not an even footing and certain players are fitter than others, but I'm being very broad and this is merely a first draft of thought. There are a hell of a lot of players in the championship and league 1 who could be squad players in the premiership with better fitness and coaching. Stoke City spent the best part of the last few seasons proving this, numerous players who aren't "Premiership" quality playing in a top flight side, putting in a decent shift.

I'd argue with a more expensive pre-season and with some better fitness people on-board there is easily half a dozen championship sides who could hold their own in the premiership. The championship is a brutal league with 46 league games alone, all very demanding not even taking into account cup ties. Sides like Stoke and Wolves got out of that league through hard work in the gym on the backs of 'lesser' players and have then held their own in the premiership too. Fitness and condition are similar things, but a person can be fit whilst not premiership condition. As I said before though, there are some players who when FM12 comes out, will never be capable of premiership or championship football because they're currently in league one or league two. The truth is that if these were given a chance in a better environment they could easily flourish or at least have the chance to.

I don't think that condition needs an overhaul, but the OP's certainly put forward an idea that has at least touched on an area that could be improved.

You often here managers and coaches - even commentators and pundits - talking about "Levels of Fitness", so perhaps that could be taken literally. Instead of limiting a players condition dependent on percentage, why not have levels of fitness dependent on a players natural fitness, stamina, the clubs facilities and staff.

I do think it's true that lower league football has got a lower fitness level than the top tiers, as is proved when lower teams take on the bigger clubs - you see it with cramp etc.

Levels could be from 1-5 with each having a condition level of up to 100%. So as younger players get older and improve, so would their Fitness Level until it "Peaks" then once they start to reach the end of their career they begin to decline and won't be able to start or finish as many matches. Or you could just get naturally fit players who are always at level 5 and naturally unfit players who are always hovering around the level 1/2.

As with injuries, you could set it up so if a player gets a major injury and is out for say 6 months, his fitness level decreases from 4 to 2, then as they come back and only play 45 mins or so, or are in the reserves their fitness begins to improve back to where it was. Or it could never return to the top levels because of the nature of the injury.

There'd be no limits set on what players could reach level 5 but it would be dependent on the player himself - ie his stats, minutes played etc..

Just an improvement on an idea which I think has some merits.

That does sound like a much better compliment to what I had in mind. I understand that the game is meant to factor in this already, but players like Jon Parkin could probably play in the premiership if it wasn't for the fact he was such a big bloke and unfit. A lot of players drop down leagues without ever really becoming worse passers, finishers etc. They may lose pace but a lot of players also lose fitness, particularly in some parts of the world where pre-professional factors take effect.

Just to follow up on this

How many itmes have you seen a player being transferred then not played due them not being "match fit". Games played/facilities/coach should all impact on this.

Non League part time player: 60% condition

Blue Square/League 2 Level: 70 - 75% condition

League 1: 75% - 80% condition

Championship: 85 - 90% condition

Premiership: 90 - 95% condition

Teams with great fitness coaches/facilities: 95 - 100% condition

The main problem I have with this is that lower league teams would never beat big teams, ever. A Premiership team with condition at 100% against league 2 team at 70%, by the end of the game the score would be about 6-0 due to the fact that after half time the league 2 team being around 40%. Just because your a premiership player doesn't automatically make you fitter than everyone below you, it's down to that individual. You ever see Rocky 4? Ivan Drago in his state of the art training facility and Rocky, running up a snow covered mountain and using logs. Who won?

Did you ever see star wars?

- Waves hand across slowly - You agree with me.

In all seriousness though, you can't use a piece of fiction as some kind of evidence and proof that this isn't always the case. I'm sure I heard a rumour that Dolph almost killed Stallone during the making of that film due to accidentally punching him and doing some serious damage inside his rib cage.

It was a very vauge and general concept, which can have exceptions as mentioned like players who don't train much or at all (Ledley King) and if you continued reading you would see in light of what Dave80 said I actually realised I was off in that regard, but rather some scale separately that players can progress up with better conditions would be better.

In my experience the condition indicator is more a measure of how exhausted your poor little dears are. And certainly when you have managed an U20 World Cup Team or U23 Olympic team you see this. Younger players get 'tired' and are just about unable to play. The individual physical attributes are more a measure of the 'condition' you are talking about and indeed having better facilities and fitness coaches will see you players physical attributes increase. Not sure how the 'natural fitness' stat works though. I have trained up promising youths into very good players, yet their natural fitness stat is 5 while their stamina and workrate are both over 15 and when they get injured they come back just as good in no time. I find it more frustrating that a player goes out for 4-5 weeks with a hamstring and returns with the same pace, acceleration and agility (at least in FM09). Big injuries don't seem to affect a players progress either which is also a concern. I know it would make the game less fun but you can't have a bloke go out injured with a knee and get back to his best inside six months...

I upgraded my training facilities to the best they could be and my players always have very good condition, never rest them from training and quite often play 5 games in 2 weeks with minimal changes.

Indeed there is some factors in but as I said it would need an overhaul to be more intuitive. League One players in general aren't as fit as premier league, bundesliga etc players. Clubs at the top spend more money on this area of the game than teams in lower levels do on transfers. If you line average men up:

Player A has a diet tailored to his needs, any supplements that are legal provided by the club, the best recovery treatments (hydrotherapy pools etc) and trains daily.

Player B who does mostly the same but has a bit more of a generic diet, is still more likely to go out on the weekend and have a few more beers and doesn't have the best recovery equipment available.

Player C trains a few times a week but at really poor quality facilities, thier diets have little input from the club.

To use an example from Stoke City of this: John Walters. Now Walters is playing comfortably in the premiership and europa league, and as Stoke researcher the main asset is the blokes fitness, he was lazy as a lad and didn't work hard or apply himself (self admitted), slipped down to league 2. Once there he realised prospects were pretty grim and began applying himself again, working harder on his training and his ability was there all along. As Player C he would have about 70 - 80CA. He moves and becomes Player B at Ipswich, still got the same skill but the training is more regimented, more focused there is better professionals on hand to control it, this got him up to around 112 CA I think when he joined Stoke. He came in last season and was our joint top goalscorer with Jones, he got upped in January and it still wasn't enough to make him actually feature in a premiership side under the AI. So he's a first team player at Stoke, but not good enough in game to play because of the way a players ability is so heavily reliant upon his CA than his condition. There have been numerous examples of players like this over the years who were good enough all along, but a lack of good training often saw the slip through like Michael Turner as another example.

With FM the main difference between leagues is the CA, it is impossible that a player at 23/24 will be in the lower leagues and be able to facilitate a rise up the leagues through hardwork and getting fitter. The difference between the top end of the championship and the bottom end of the premiership isn't much, but you load up the FM database. Top championship sides (and often the promoted 3) are usually 15 - 20 points of CA behind the relegated sides when looking at the average of the team) when FM12 comes out you'll be able to check exact gaps for yourselves.

The teams would be on a relatively even footing, but if you were serious about it and were willing to or had a board that allowed you to invest in improving the training side of the game you could really get noticable differences from taking players on full time. Hiring full time fitness coaches, improving training facilities. Even in the same league its not an even footing and certain players are fitter than others, but I'm being very broad and this is merely a first draft of thought. There are a hell of a lot of players in the championship and league 1 who could be squad players in the premiership with better fitness and coaching. Stoke City spent the best part of the last few seasons proving this, numerous players who aren't "Premiership" quality playing in a top flight side, putting in a decent shift.

I'd argue with a more expensive pre-season and with some better fitness people on-board there is easily half a dozen championship sides who could hold their own in the premiership. The championship is a brutal league with 46 league games alone, all very demanding not even taking into account cup ties. Sides like Stoke and Wolves got out of that league through hard work in the gym on the backs of 'lesser' players and have then held their own in the premiership too. Fitness and condition are similar things, but a person can be fit whilst not premiership condition. As I said before though, there are some players who when FM12 comes out, will never be capable of premiership or championship football because they're currently in league one or league two. The truth is that if these were given a chance in a better environment they could easily flourish or at least have the chance to.

I had to highlight your example. It wasn't the level or the club he was playing at made him fitter it was his own attitude, A club can have the best training facilities and the best fitness coaches but if the player has a lazy attitude its the players fault. Condition in the game takes everything into condition if he has low natural fitness it will take a player longer to reach 100% than someone that has a high natural fitness rating. It also takes into the standard of facilities the days inbetween matches etc.

In my experience the condition indicator is more a measure of how exhausted your poor little dears are.

This.

Having a 'condition' at 100% shows they are ready to play a game. But this doesn't mean they would be able to go all day, because their individual 'stamina' and 'natural fitness' come into play.

I understand what the OP's point is regarding difference between divisions. But this differences should be seen in the 'stamina' and 'natural fitness' stats. But then may get the odd fitness 'freak' lower down.

Isn't this somewhat represented on game already with CA and Stamina though?

Generally higher division players will have more CA and consequently more Stamina.

Isn't this somewhat represented on game already with CA and Stamina though?

Generally higher division players will have more CA and consequently more Stamina.

It is, And generally a player wont max out his PA with out top training facilities, so when you transfer a player to a club with better training facilities you often see a jump in there attributes often including stamina.