Team talks for 2nd leg matches?

Here's the senario. After a couple of dodgy results in the group stages of the CL I finish second and draw Milan in the next round, the first leg being at home of course. I thought i'd play balls out of the bag and really go for it and that worked, we won 6-0. How would you approach the team talk for the second leg? I obviously got it wrong and I'm confused as to the ass mans advice too. He said say nothing but I said assertivly, do not get complacent, this seemed the most Logical one. We were 3-0 down at half time after a proper battering. I was livid and preapred to bollock them until my assman said 'tell the how well they're playing'. I told them that improvement was needed, sent them out and the game finished 3-0 (3-6) agg. Obviously I was delighted to go through but annoyed with the performance. My assman was saying tell them we are really happy with that performance? I suppose the question im asking is should I be approaching team talks by the tie as a whole or by each leg? How do you lot approach them? I should point out I'm one of the favourites and losing to Milan away is nothing to be ashamed of it was more the manner of the performance. It vould easily have been 6-0.

This is one area I can not gt to grips with. It makes sense that if you lose the second leg you would be annoyed at them even if you go through, but your not allowed to tell them that as you got though and it just annoys them. Am sure in real life if this happened(win first leg lost second) then the manager wouldn't go in at FT in second leg and go "well done lads you played well tonight" as they didn't they lost. I think this needs to be looked at a little.

Maybe offer a "tie team talk" and a "match team talk" jsut for those two legged matches.

I think the game trips out and thinks you've won by the agg. Score rather than the actual score. Also it predicted a tight affair which will likely to goto pens before KO?

It's true that the game seems to trip out a little on those matches.It seems that it treats each whole game as a "half match" instead.

I'm not sure what way would be best to treat the talks as. The question is whether the players themselves go by the same logic as the assistant manager.

Personally I think that they don't and that it's best to treat them on their individual performance,but that could be completely wrong,right or somewhere in-between.

This is one area I can not gt to grips with. It makes sense that if you lose the second leg you would be annoyed at them even if you go through, but your not allowed to tell them that as you got though and it just annoys them. Am sure in real life if this happened(win first leg lost second) then the manager would go n at FT in second leg and go "well done lads you played well tonight" as they didn't they lost. I think this needs to be looked at a little.

Maybe offer a "tie team talk" and a "match team talk" jsut for those two legged matches.

The idea of a tie team talk is a good one. Being able to talk about the match then the tie on a whole. I like that

The idea of a tie team talk is a good one. Being able to talk about the match then the tie on a whole. I like that

I am glad you agree with me on this one, but then again how many people will complain about it, i would say quite a few, despite it probably just making the game more realistic.

Am sure the other night Mancini went into changing room and said something like "Lads over the two legs you weren't great, but tonight great effort unlucky your didn't get through"