Team morale is too important: an MLS case study.

There have been numerous topics created as to whether or not team morale has too big of an impact on the game. To sum up the argument: Does correlation equal causation? Is poor team morale a result of poor performances, or is the poor morale directly leading to the poor play? Countless players have found themselves faced with the Herculean task of picking up a bottom feeder and trying to salvage a season...and just as many players have coasted through the season without ever breaking a sweat when looking at the standings. Peg me into the latter category.

However, of particular note is how the vast majority of players are playing in leagues where there's a noticeable gulf in talent between the top teams and the bottom ones, of which I'm sure the issue of promotion/relegation plays an important role. Thus, it's viewed as only natural for some teams to dominate the league while others are doomed to relegation after only a few weeks; for every "Invincible" Arsenal team there's going to be a Derby squad that challenges for worst Premier League team of all time. Viewed through this lens, it's understandable that high-flying teams should be enjoying a happy lockerroom whereas the struggling sides play "without confidence."

MLS, the league I play in exclusively, was designed to operate in the opposite manner; every team should have a realistic shot at challenging for the Cup each year (or, to a lesser degree, the Supporter's Shield, which is awarded to the team with the best record over the season.) A look at the 2011 season shows that Los Angeles finished with the most points in the league with 67 from 34 games, whereas New England and Vancouver (in their first year in the league) both finished with 28 points, tying them for worst team. In fact, here's how the numbers break down from the 2002 season:

Year/highest pts./lowest pts./games played

2002: 51/32/28

2003: 53/23/30

2004: 49/33/30

2005: 64/18/32

2006: 55/33/32

2007: 55/27/30

2008: 57/33/30

2009: 49/21/30

2010: 59/22/30

Here's how it looks in my game:

2011: 69/26/34

2012: 74/20/34

2013: 82/28/34

2014: 75/20/34

2015: 78/16/34

2016: 86/21/34

Currently in 2017: 37 pts from 13 games/4 pts from 14 games

Notice how the gap between the best and worst team has increased (in terms of point difference) almost every season? Granted, I've amassed a pretty powerful squad and most of those records are mine, BUT other MLS teams are routinely pushing the 70 point barrier (better than 2 pts/game) which is something that only occured once in real life from 2002. These teams are all playing on a relatively even field thanks to the salary cap, and some of those bottom-feeders have signed Designated Players to multi-million dollar deals, and each year I edit the draft class to provide decent quality for all teams to find players. Put simply, there really shouldn't be that wide of a talent gap between the clubs. So why the huge differences? Coaches have swapped around the league with regularity, and few have had any noticeable impact on their teams, including names like Hristo Stoichkov and his 140+CA (who bounced between 4 clubs and is now coaching at Swansea.) Scoring is also way out of line...successful teams are piling on the goals (some almost reaching 3 goals/game) while the poor teams are giving them up just as quickly. Again, this sort of thing just doesn't happen in real life in MLS (no matter how much I may wish it were true!)

Where does that leave me? I keep coming back to the same conclusion each time...the teams suffering from poor morale seem to hit an invisible wall from which they can't recover, and each defeat only makes the problem worse. In effect, the game rewards winning by making it easier to win, and punishes losing by handicapping struggling sides.

This is Football Manager, not Lockerrom Love Simulator. Let teams succeed (and fail) based on the abilities of the coaching staff and squad. Let results be decided by the team that simply plays better on the field and not which team is feeling "more confident" than the other.

Otto Rehhagel and his Greek team are the perfect example : the quality of his players was pants, as such his tactics were mostly nullifying the opposition, which still wouldn't be enough to win, but somehow they did... through great morale. That greek team had absolutely no business winning Euro 2004, but they did. It wasn't through spectacular skill, or spectacular tactics (tho rehhagel did counter his opponents brilliantly), it was the perfect example of a team that played well and above what they should have, because they were confident in what they could do.

Look at Inter this year, they seemed to be getting back on track, then a bad result against napoli, they lose 2-0. Morale drops a bit, then they lose to Lecce 1-0. Morale drops even more. They somehow squeeze out 4-4 with Palermo and morale doesn't pick up, then Roma pull their pants down, 4-0. After that thumping, they get beaten by Novara 1-0, and Bologna 3-0. Then they come up against a quality team in Marseille and still lose 1-0, and to round it out, Napoli beat them again on the weekend 1-0. Look at that squad. Inter should not be losing to 3 of the bottom 5 teams in the league, it should not be possible. If it happened in FM, you would tear your hair out and likely have one of those "omg the game is rigged against me" moments, thinking that you just can't win. But that has happened in real life, the morale at Inter is horrendous, and so follows horrendous results. How do you motivate that team now? "Hey guys if we do really well this last stretch maybe we can pick up enough points to make it into the Europa League and spend next year playing against Europes second-tier clubs!!"

Opinion on whether or not morale is too important will always be divided, even with pseudo-scientific studies. I've kept most of my team happy the entire season and done well, but the one player on the team who doesn't like what I say a lot of the time has the best rating of all. IMO Morale is really damn important because it should be. Morale dips in real life can turn champions into turkeys, and it should be the same in FM.

But thats just my opinion

The statistics in the OP could be used to show SI that "defending is horrible" too. And it is. I'm sure they are working on team defending (not mano-y-mano as it is now) so I'm not too worried if they make it to the FM13 deadline.

Otto Rehhagel and his Greek team are the perfect example : the quality of his players was pants, as such his tactics were mostly nullifying the opposition, which still wouldn't be enough to win, but somehow they did... through great morale. That greek team had absolutely no business winning Euro 2004, but they did. It wasn't through spectacular skill, or spectacular tactics (tho rehhagel did counter his opponents brilliantly), it was the perfect example of a team that played well and above what they should have, because they were confident in what they could do.

You forgot to mention that Otto Rehhagel is one of the greatest football tacticians of all time (and what is extremely rare he is both innovative and reactive tactician). Greek team was probably poor overall, but they had certain characteristics/skills (height, strength, jumping, heading, stamina, hardworking midfield, discipline...) that were as good or better than that of the other teams in the tournament. What is even more important their characteristics where well suited to deep/defensive/set play strategy. Rehhagel himself is an expert in defensive tactics and advocate of tall/strong players. All this contributed to their success but what actually made it possible is unseen level of automation (for national side), this was previously achieved or possible only at top level clubs. In my opinion moral wasn't an important factor at all.

It does have a massive bearing in real life, success breeds success and failure breeds failure. And it only takes one ore two unhappy/uncooperative individuals to bring a team down. If you are interested read up on 'Steiner's model of actual productivity' and 'The ringelmann effect'. In terms of the real world, using these model I predict Man City bringing back Tevez will have a negative effect, yes he is talented and may well be willing to work but if one or two individuals feel that Mancini brought him back because he did not have faith in them (let's face it there isn't an injury crisis as an excuse), then they will unwittingly bring the team down regardless of adding a talented squad member, throw in a couple of bad results and the effect could snowball.

OK, academic babble over. It does matter but FM does place too much emphasis on it.

Look at Rangers from a few years ago getting to the EURO cup final, there is no way their team was as good as the others in that comp, but because Walter Smith forged a fantastic team spirit they massively over achieved. I've said it before, i think moral is one of the single most important things in football. What FM doesnt reflect enough is the up's and downs teams can have, the last patch went some where to change that, but still not enough.

but some teams/players don't lose "moral", it just puts the mongrel into the dog so they grind out a next win, or loss, but they will remain confident of their abilities.

"Moral" IRL seems to me, to be affected by confidence in the manager and other players around them, more than a loss or three.

I have seen a few teams go on a winning streak becuase the manager has conjured a good tactic and the players take to it like water, then go on a bit of a losing streak becuase they get countered and other teams realise how to beat that said tactic. It's not untill a new tactic is conjured and the team learn to impliment it properly that the winning starts again, "moral" essentially had little bearing on the outcome and the change of tactic could only be minor tweaks to how a couple of players defend or attack.

I would rather a more tacticle side to the game than the psycholovebanter we have now.

an attacking formation and a defensive formation in the one tactic for starters (within reason) would be a start, you have very minimal controll over a players position and how they should play it, at the moment I cannot stop my lone striker becoming a winger and my winger a central midfielder, the controlls you have are quite vague.

It does have a massive bearing in real life, success breeds success and failure breeds failure. And it only takes one ore two unhappy/uncooperative individuals to bring a team down. If you are interested read up on 'Steiner's model of actual productivity' and 'The ringelmann effect'. In terms of the real world, using these model I predict Man City bringing back Tevez will have a negative effect, yes he is talented and may well be willing to work but if one or two individuals feel that Mancini brought him back because he did not have faith in them (let's face it there isn't an injury crisis as an excuse), then they will unwittingly bring the team down regardless of adding a talented squad member, throw in a couple of bad results and the effect could snowball.

OK, academic babble over. It does matter but FM does place too much emphasis on it.

And this all goes back to correlation v causation, though. Sure, I could say that happy teams are winning teams...but that isn't true. Nor are teams fighting relegation going out on the field and moping around. Who would you believe to have the better lockerroom atmosphere right now, Wigan or Chelsea? The Tevez argument, to me, doesn't hold water in light of the fact that City already have the likes of Balotelli on the squad; how many bust-ups has he had with his managers?

Games should be decided almost entirely based on two things: tactics and squad talent. The manager should have the biggest impact on how a club fares...but in FM the managers are all, by and large, seemingly generic and interchangeable. This shifts the burden towards talent but, as I have already pointed out, my experience with MLS has shown that even a narrow difference in talent is resulting in wildly different performances for clubs. This leads me to believe that a third factor, that of team morale, is actually having the largest impact on determining how a game (and perhaps more importantly, the season) plays out.

Sure, I could say that happy teams are winning teams...but that isn't true. Nor are teams fighting relegation going out on the field and moping around. Who would you believe to have the better lockerroom atmosphere right now, Wigan or Chelsea?

That's a bit disingenuous - let me explain why, in FM terms, Chelsea having an awful morale would be realistic:

- Chelsea are not meeting season expectations, which under the very demanding Abramovic, Chelsea fans, and players used to success, would be a title challenge.

- Their recent form is awful - 4 wins in 14 games, regardless of where you are in the table, makes for poor morale

- 'Key players', with high 'influence', aren't starting enough games - Frank Lampard, for example, and are unhappy

- The manager's reputation doesn't necessarily befit the job he's been given - not saying AVB's not a great manager, but he's young and still relatively new, and has certainly made mistakes

- Wigan set out for a relegation battle every season. Their team will still be a bit low on confidence from losing so much, but they still know it's par for the course, and every draw will boost morale like a win would for Chelsea

- The players are, by and large, happy, they all respect their manager, and the hierarchy of the squad isn't being shaken up

(I agree with you on the Tevez part being a poor argument by the previous poster)

Games should be decided almost entirely based on two things: tactics and squad talent.

Not true - morale does play a huge part on football in real life, so there's no reason it shouldn't in the game. Look at Arsenal last season once they started dropping out of trophies - you cannot say poor morale played no part in that. A number of title races have seen Manchester United come out on top when opponents' nerves and the pressure have got to them - the best example being Kevin Keegan's Newcastle. Martin O'Neill at Sunderland isn't the most tactically astute manager, nor has he made any real signings, but the team are playing much better under him mostly through morale and confidence. Fabio Capello was a good tactician, but his management style left the England squad very unhappy.

The manager should have the biggest impact on how a club fares...but in FM the managers are all, by and large, seemingly generic and interchangeable.

I agree that AI manager personalities aren't distinguished enough, but I don't think they're generic. I've seen top 4 clubs in the Premier League taken over by Steve Bruce and promptly fall away into mid-table mediocrity But I do agree that there needs to be a more pronounced effect on clubs having a certain manager.

This shifts the burden towards talent but, as I have already pointed out, my experience with MLS has shown that even a narrow difference in talent is resulting in wildly different performances for clubs. This leads me to believe that a third factor, that of team morale, is actually having the largest impact on determining how a game (and perhaps more importantly, the season) plays out.

Have you tried simulating this without being in charge of a team? I'm not discounting your results, but I think you'd get a more accurate picture if the top team was always AI.

That's a bit disingenuous - let me explain why, in FM terms, Chelsea having an awful morale would be realistic:

- Chelsea are not meeting season expectations, which under the very demanding Abramovic, Chelsea fans, and players used to success, would be a title challenge.

- Their recent form is awful - 4 wins in 14 games, regardless of where you are in the table, makes for poor morale

- 'Key players', with high 'influence', aren't starting enough games - Frank Lampard, for example, and are unhappy

- The manager's reputation doesn't necessarily befit the job he's been given - not saying AVB's not a great manager, but he's young and still relatively new, and has certainly made mistakes

- Wigan set out for a relegation battle every season. Their team will still be a bit low on confidence from losing so much, but they still know it's par for the course, and every draw will boost morale like a win would for Chelsea

- The players are, by and large, happy, they all respect their manager, and the hierarchy of the squad isn't being shaken up

(I agree with you on the Tevez part being a poor argument by the previous poster)

Not true - morale does play a huge part on football in real life, so there's no reason it shouldn't in the game. Look at Arsenal last season once they started dropping out of trophies - you cannot say poor morale played no part in that. A number of title races have seen Manchester United come out on top when opponents' nerves and the pressure have got to them - the best example being Kevin Keegan's Newcastle. Martin O'Neill at Sunderland isn't the most tactically astute manager, nor has he made any real signings, but the team are playing much better under him mostly through morale and confidence. Fabio Capello was a good tactician, but his management style left the England squad very unhappy.

I agree that AI manager personalities aren't distinguished enough, but I don't think they're generic. I've seen top 4 clubs in the Premier League taken over by Steve Bruce and promptly fall away into mid-table mediocrity But I do agree that there needs to be a more pronounced effect on clubs having a certain manager.

Have you tried simulating this without being in charge of a team? I'm not discounting your results, but I think you'd get a more accurate picture if the top team was always AI.

Hmm...you seem to be supporting my argument, though.

1. Chelsea is in a funk, yes. But look at their current standing. Their talent is clearly keeping them in the running for a CL spot. The fact that Lampard and co. aren't playing regularly would indicate a failure on the coach's part (and not morale) in winning v losing a game. Look at their game against Napoli- AVB was immediately criticized for his squad selection, and that's where the blame is being placed for the loss, not any sort of poor morale on the player's part. Contrast that with Wigan, which you admit isn't expected to have a good season. In FM, their morale would be in the pits regardless of expectations, due entirely to the fact that they're not winning.

2. Arsenal has been criticized for years now due to their inability to build a great squad. They didn't drop out of trophies as a result of poor morale; they dropped out because their squads simply weren't good enough. Look at their defensive woes this year; is this a result of poor morale, or players simply not being good enough? And yet, for all of their failings, their talent still has them in contention for a CL spot just like Chelsea.

3. Opponents' nerves and pressure has nothing to with morale and everything to do with the make-up of the team. As for Martin O'Neill, when you mention that the team is playing much better under him mostly through morale and confidence, where does that morale and confidence come from? When he took over, did the team suddenly "buck up" and start winning, or is it the other way around? Did O'Neill find a better way of utilizing the talent he had to get results, which in turn led to the team's increase in morale and confidence?

4. Sadly, I haven't always finished first in the league, and at least one other team each season is breaking the 2pt/game barrier. In my cuurent game, for example, I'm 20 points off of the lead with 8 games in hand. LA could lose all 7 remaining games and would still have over 2pts/game for the season.

3. Opponents' nerves and pressure has nothing to with morale and everything to do with the make-up of the team. As for Martin O'Neill, when you mention that the team is playing much better under him mostly through morale and confidence, where does that morale and confidence come from? When he took over, did the team suddenly "buck up" and start winning, or is it the other way around? Did O'Neill find a better way of utilizing the talent he had to get results, which in turn led to the team's increase in morale and confidence?

As for your experiment, it isn't very scientific. There's no attempt to control, and your contrasting sample of real life 34 match seasons only has one data point in it. All you've proved is that the best teams overachieve in the MLS in FM, though even that is questionable.

Have you tried running a holiday game, without controlling any of the teams in that league, and seeing if this affects your findings, or perhaps looking at a league where you have had absolutely no effect (e.g. in another continent, where you won't have even played against any of the teams in that league in a competitive fixture)?

I don't know if it would have an effect, but it could be that our input could adversely influence the "natural" course of a season.

Have you tried running a holiday game, without controlling any of the teams in that league, and seeing if this affects your findings, or perhaps looking at a league where you have had absolutely no effect (e.g. in another continent, where you won't have even played against any of the teams in that league in a competitive fixture)?

I don't know if it would have an effect, but it could be that our input could adversely influence the "natural" course of a season.

I did. I loaded the english premier league and started unemployed. With fmrte, I put morale of all players on 10, after that, reload and put the morale of the home teams on 20 and away teams on 1, reloaded: home 1 and away 20.

So I had 3 trials, and loaded every trial twice. Then I compared the results... morale didn't have any influence, no noticable differences in results or goals. I didn't use any statistical tests, but if morale was such a big factor, I should at least have seen a difference in the right direction. But it just looked random.

My guess is that morale is only a factor in games that involve a human player.

Update

First 10-year test (MLS as the only loaded league, unemployed manager and using the 12.2.2 database/patch):

2011- 65/22

2012- 62/26

2013- 66/25

2014- 57/34

2015- 60/33

2016- 70/18

2017- 62/17

2018- 61/24

2019- 63/33

2020- 63/28

2021- 72/21

Average gap between best and worst club from real life- 27.8

Average gap from test 1- 38.2

Morale is generally unbalanced and has always been in this game. Like many other features it will never be fully fixed quase there's never time.

For example, in FM 12 a team may be performing WAY above expectations and has great morale. Then it loses 2 games and you see players falling to ok, poor and sometimes very poor, not caring about the fact that they are already perfoming amazing in general.

It's just too erratic, too black and white, too sterile.

My perspective is that I spend a lot of time and effort keeping my players morale up, winning games, obviously, but rotating the squad, praising players for good play, giving players the occasional day off, that it SHOULD have an impact. How much of an impact? Its tough.

Like the Inter example above, its clear that morale does have an impact in RL. Sometimes individual mistakes decide matches, like Smalling vs Kompany at the weekend, or Mascherano and Puyol's mix up vs Ramires and Drogs. How is a simulator going to decide who/when/what/why an individual such as Puyol or Mascherano makes a mistake? I think its right to use morale as a 'form modulator'.

I think the message FM is sending is that morale is very important. More important in FM than real life? Possibly, but its not like morale is static and unchangeable. As a manager you need to use ALL the tricks in your tool kit, loan spells, new contracts, lowering expectations before the match, to just locking your players up after a poor game, for a good tongue lashing.

FM says personnel + tactics + good morale = success. I think we can argue the relative importance of each part of the 'equation' but we can also agree that it is a fair reflection of the dynamics at play in RL.

Test 2:

2011- 65/19

2012- 57/32

2013- 77/20

2014- 71/19

2015- 59/25

2016- 58/38

2017- 62/22

2018- 59/22

2019- 59/24

2020- 62/28

2021- 62/18

Average gap: 38.5