Team talks and player attitudes.

Whats up with this version of FMs spoiled players?

Am I no longer allowed to tell a player he was utter crap without him complaining that I'm being too harsh and destroying all of his confidence?

For example, I just lost a game 3-1 away, and my players got ratings of; gk 6.6, defenders 6.5, 6.8, 6.5 and 5.6. Mid - 6.1, 6.0. I told these players, individually, that they were utter crap and only one of them agreed and said it will improve and it wasn't the guy with a 5.6 rating! All the rest just couldn't seem to believe I would dare single them out.

Bear in mind that this is a team who is top of the premier league after 33 games, in the final of the FA cup, who won the league cup and are in the semis of the champs league. Basically, what I'm saying is that these players are all supposed to be pretty much world class, with world class attitudes (some world class egos as well I suppose).

I'm finding dealing with players a real struggle on FM12 (and people thought FM11 player handling was tempremental). So much stuff in regaurds to player interaction doesn't seem to add up on FM12 and there is no consistency, like sending a player out whos lost all confidence beacuse of your half time team talk and then all of a sudden he's motivated in 5mins and scores a goal.

So how exactly am I supposed to play this mini game of Russian roulette with my players?

gk 6.6 played ok

defenders 6.5, 6.8, 6.5 - played ok

and 5.6. I'd given him a chat to tell him to buck up

Mid - 6.1, 6.0. - not terrible, but not their best game

I would only single out players that scored below 6.0 to be honest.

I do find that when I stress a player out that they go out and win the match single handly though. I actually like seeing it cos I know he'll play his heart out and get MotM.

If I see a player playing badly I'll take them off. I'd have subbed the 5.6 the 6.1 and the 6.0

I also sub anyone that lost confidence during half time team talk especially if they're not having a particularly bad game. My thinking is if they are having a bad game and losing confidence, then they won't start the 2nd half.

I find that to deal with player I just leave them with the team talk and only single them out in certain cases. If a player has less then a 6.0 then I tell him he has done poor. If a player has a 8.5+ then he gets told he did well. Unless of cause there is multiple plyers on such a high rating, then you just tell the team they did well.

gk 6.6 played ok

defenders 6.5, 6.8, 6.5 - played ok

and 5.6. I'd given him a chat to tell him to buck up

Mid - 6.1, 6.0. - not terrible, but not their best game

I would only single out players that scored below 6.0 to be honest.

I do find that when I stress a player out that they go out and win the match single handly though. I actually like seeing it cos I know he'll play his heart out and get MotM.

If I see a player playing badly I'll take them off. I'd have subbed the 5.6 the 6.1 and the 6.0

I also sub anyone that lost confidence during half time team talk especially if they're not having a particularly bad game. My thinking is if they are having a bad game and losing confidence, then they won't start the 2nd half.

Well I would consider those ratings not even nearly good enough (apart from maybe the 6.8 and even that isn't really good enough). They cost me the game and don't forget that these are supposed to be world class players in a world class team so it's hardly acceptable ratings.

I'm not doing much differently than I did in FM11 but it's not working out. A player has to get REALLY poor ratings or they spit there dummies out after getting a talking too, even if there **** poor performances cost my team a loss in a big game.

I did sub them all. Alwyas do when the ratings are unacceptable.

:)Since FM9 I deal with my players"Harry's Way"LOL,i never tell them they are rubbish,only give praise,i start games with "good luck",if 0-0 half time i'm still happy,if 0-1 i expect better in second half(worked in FM11),I allways tell the team they did well,those over 8 get more in team talk,i never tell a player he's poor,i've found if your on a run of winning games every 4/5th game i say "i expect a win"at the start otherwise they start slow,a bit like last night v Stoke,Complacent at the start,works for me keeps the run going ,,if they keep putting in 6's then they aren't good enough!

6.5 is average rating.

6.0 is below average rating.

Expecting players to get 7.0 and above is unrealistic.

Complacency sets in when a team is winning everything.

Usually if I lose like that and the team played bad I'll be aggressive about it and tell them they were crap.

But I'd only single out players that got below 6.0.

I fined a guy for getting 5.4 before and he accepted it. The players were more responsive the next game.

But saying they cost you the game? Why didn't you sub the players that were playing bad? Switch positions, or formation? Do something different?

Even a World Class team can play crap once in a while. Happens all the time in real football.

Last year Real Madrid lost to Mallorca, a game which probably cost them the league.

A world class player doesn't necessarily have a world-class attitude. He may just be gifted. There are plenty of examples of this!

If you are an inexperienced manager, have lower reputation than the players or haven't established rapport yet, they won't listen to you.

When that is said, I never single out above-6.4 performances in individual chats because those are considered okay performances by anyone else than model professionals and the like. Anything less than 6.9 is of course rubbish, but the game doesn't think so because the AI seems to struggle getting more than 7.0 for anyone but goalscorers.

I stopped trying to make 8.0+ rating players who don't respond to the team praise happy after a 9.0+ fellow reacted badly to a passionate delighted individual team talk. Their morale is Superb after that anyways so there is no point. And if a player becomes angry when I slam the team after a poor perfomance in the first half, I let him be angry. I haven't seen a particularly poor response in the second half from angered players and their morale don't drop either.

I have found that I very often put pressure (For the Fans, expect a win) on my in-form Roma team in the pre-match team talk, while I very often release pressure on my Championship-leading Bradford team (Assertive at home/calm away "impress me"). At half-time I am mostly strict and demand improvement or focus, something many players react badly to and I rarely address that. At full time I have mostly won so I praise them. Those who don't respond I ignore (except substituted players who played well and is in need of a morale boost).

I never praise good form in individual chats and I approach poor-form individual chats with extreme caution.

I always discipline all players who have had a bad month on the training ground according to the chief coach.

The only time I'll praise someone is if they get over 9.5 in the ratings.

Anything between 6.5 and 9.0 I'm happy with.

Anything below 6.5 and I'll be subbing them.

6.5 is average rating.

6.0 is below average rating.

Expecting players to get 7.0 and above is unrealistic.

Complacency sets in when a team is winning everything.

Usually if I lose like that and the team played bad I'll be aggressive about it and tell them they were crap.

But I'd only single out players that got below 6.0.

I fined a guy for getting 5.4 before and he accepted it. The players were more responsive the next game.

But saying they cost you the game? Why didn't you sub the players that were playing bad? Switch positions, or formation? Do something different?

Even a World Class team can play crap once in a while. Happens all the time in real football.

Last year Real Madrid lost to Mallorca, a game which probably cost them the league.

Exactly this. It sounds like and forgive me if you take this the wrong way, but you lost a game and you have raged and gone overboard with your criticism of your team. 6.5 is an ok rating, just means they havent really got involved, fining or having a go at a player for this rating is madness and completely over the top. I would very rarely have a go like that if your winning the league but lost an odd game. The team talk after the game should have been more than enough, going after individuals when your doing that well is again complete madness and over the top as far as im concerned. If it had happened more than 1 game close to each other fair enough, but everyone is allowed a bad day at the office. You should also look at what you could have done to avoid the situatoin, were you as aware tactically as you could have been in that certain game or did you take your mind off the match because your doing so well? Its not always your players fault.

In your situation the only player i would have maybe spoken too was the one who played the 5.6 and only if that rating had not come through a mistake, he could have played ok, but if he made a mistake that cost a goal he wont get near the rating he could have which would be why he is upset with you, no player who knows he has made a mistake is going to want to sit in a room whilst you point it out to him and its definitely not going to build his confidence back up.

I use the same pre-match team talk every time; assertive "have faith". The players are either "happy" or "motivated" and they respond on the pitch pretty well most of the time.

Individual chats are pointless if players already have superb morale.

Your team has by your own admission been very successful, so it is very hard to criticise so many players individually for what might just have been one bad game for all of them, especially if they have been generaly playing well. A general moan at the team altogether should have been sufficient and only criticise a player individually for an exceptionally bad performance or a series of poor ones.

What really annoys me is when you are criticizing a player one-on-one, and he responds by "I don't understand why you're singling me out, I wasn't the only one who played badly". Well, guess what, if you only bothered to look out, there's a line of your teammates outside waiting to get yelled at!

It does depend on the squad personality, and a lot. I can be pretty aggressive with my determined and professional Bayern squad, and it usually results in them being fired up with at most one exception in the bunch. In fact, I've only had players go to the media due to bad team talks twice, and both those times I misclicked and selected the wrong option.

As for ratings, I can usually get away with soft criticism if they play below 7.0. Of course there are a few exceptions (and hopefully they won't be for long).

6.5 is average rating.

6.0 is below average rating.

Expecting players to get 7.0 and above is unrealistic.

Complacency sets in when a team is winning everything.

Usually if I lose like that and the team played bad I'll be aggressive about it and tell them they were crap.

But I'd only single out players that got below 6.0.

I fined a guy for getting 5.4 before and he accepted it. The players were more responsive the next game.

But saying they cost you the game? Why didn't you sub the players that were playing bad? Switch positions, or formation? Do something different?

Even a World Class team can play crap once in a while. Happens all the time in real football.

Last year Real Madrid lost to Mallorca, a game which probably cost them the league.

I know 6.5 is an average rating, according to the game, but we all know it's not good enough and never really has been. I have always singled players out with a rating this low and pretty much always had a positive response. That is until FM12 so I'm wondering what changed.

I don't expect my players to get 7.0 and above every game, but anything below say a 6.8 just doesn't cut it in a very good side, for me at least.

They cost me the game. They played poorly. If you read my second post I did say that I subbed the players but I'm not quite sure where you're going with the assumptions that nothing was changed, or what that has to do with me talking to players after the game.

I know good sides can play poorly, obviously, but my my real problem is wondering what changed to make individual team talks change so dramatically? I'm not doing anything any differently than in any other versions.

I guess I'll have to change my whole approach.

Exactly this. It sounds like and forgive me if you take this the wrong way, but you lost a game and you have raged and gone overboard with your criticism of your team. 6.5 is an ok rating, just means they havent really got involved, fining or having a go at a player for this rating is madness and completely over the top. I would very rarely have a go like that if your winning the league but lost an odd game. The team talk after the game should have been more than enough, going after individuals when your doing that well is again complete madness and over the top as far as im concerned. If it had happened more than 1 game close to each other fair enough, but everyone is allowed a bad day at the office. You should also look at what you could have done to avoid the situatoin, were you as aware tactically as you could have been in that certain game or did you take your mind off the match because your doing so well? Its not always your players fault.

In your situation the only player i would have maybe spoken too was the one who played the 5.6 and only if that rating had not come through a mistake, he could have played ok, but if he made a mistake that cost a goal he wont get near the rating he could have which would be why he is upset with you, no player who knows he has made a mistake is going to want to sit in a room whilst you point it out to him and its definitely not going to build his confidence back up.

I'm not doing anything any differently than in any other version and it's never been a problem until now. So it's not really a one off rage.

To lose your temper with a player who got a rating of anything over 6.0 is asking for trouble.

I have found it remarkably easy to keep players motivated and morale high in this game. I much more rarely use individual talks though, since it seems a lot harder to get players to accept negative criticism (I have had a striker with a 5.2 rating refuse to accept that he played badly!), but team meetings more than makes up for that.

Match talks on the other hand seems to almost always generate positive results. Unless the team is playing horribly, you can get a positive reaction from every single player in the team using "I have faith" in half-time, with tone depending on their rating. Using "expect to win" as a pre-game matchtalk sometimes manages to motivate half the team, and "have faith" on a low morale player before the game often pushes them right into "superb".

I know 6.5 is an average rating, according to the game, but we all know it's not good enough and never really has been. I have always singled players out with a rating this low and pretty much always had a positive response. That is until FM12 so I'm wondering what changed.

I don't expect my players to get 7.0 and above every game, but anything below say a 6.8 just doesn't cut it in a very good side, for me at least.

They cost me the game. They played poorly. If you read my second post I did say that I subbed the players but I'm not quite sure where you're going with the assumptions that nothing was changed, or what that has to do with me talking to players after the game.

I know good sides can play poorly, obviously, but my my real problem is wondering what changed to make individual team talks change so dramatically? I'm not doing anything any differently than in any other versions.

I guess I'll have to change my whole approach.

As I said already, Real Madrid lost to Mallorca last year and they played a full team. That one loss probably was the reason they didn't win the league last season.

In real life, top teams sometimes don't perform against other worse teams. It happens, that's football.

What happens from going from winning loads of games to losing 1 game? Complacency.

If this was 10 bad games in a row and your players all got 6.0 or lower I'd have sympathy for you. But it's 1 game. They played bad. Let them know they weren't good enough and warn against complacency.

I think than rather looking at the Stats during the game - I think you should also call up the Confidence (I think it's called that) window - that will let you know if a player is playing nervously, or looking complacent, etc.

If I have a player scoring a 6.5 or below and they look nervous I'm going to take them off.

If they are playing well then looking complacent I'll team talk to the captain at half time. Getting him more motivated - and the other players will follow the captain's attitude.