Expected to reach the final

Maybe im the only one who has an issue with this, but I find it completely unrealistic.

In my first year as newcastle I was set very low expectations, and I hammered them all finishing second in the league.

So, next season, im now expected european qualification (fine) semi finals of the fa cup (hmmm) and to win the league cup (WTF?)

So, roll on a few more seasons

2012

Im expected to challenge for the league (fine), reach the quarter finals of the champions cup (ouch - but fine) and win the fa cup (WTF!)

I made it to the semi finals, lost the chelsea. Im all set to win the league and im in the semi finals of the champions cup - and the board are only 'ok' with my performance in competitions (not metion that ive won the league cup, won the community shield, won the world club championships and win the euro super cup!!!)

Frankly, and this was the same in previous versions, I find the board expectations of domestic cup competitions utterly unrealistic. I find it hard to believe that alex ferguson has ever been 'required' to win the FA cup to keep the board happy with him.

Surely a much more realistic representation of this would be for a 'group' requirements:

EG:

You must win one major trophy this year and go out no later than the 6th round of the FA cup and qualify for the second rounds of the champions league.

Or something like that

Rather than this specific targeting at all the competitions individually. Sure it makes sense if you are jose morihnio and you have won the league twice, but not the champions league - but every season being targeted individually on each competition and targeted to win each one is totally unrealistic and really rather frustrating.

seems like the chairman wants success asap.

Hes had success. Every season. Especially this season - ive won four (minor) trophes.

Hes had success. Every season. Especially this season - ive won four (minor) trophes.

That'll be why he expects you continue with this trend. You've shown him winning is possible so he wants a piece of it.

Same problem as on 08. It's ridiculous that a chairman would "expect" you to win ANY cup just because you won it the year before. How many times do teams retain their cups (excluding Scotland and other little nations of course)?

However, it's more cosmetic than anything else. You'll only get sacked if your league performance is poor as well as your cup runs.

To be fair, I crashed out of the FA cup very early in my Liverpool save (third or fourth round), which upset the board, but despite only very slightly outperforming expectations in the league and CL, the board were, overall, "happy with progress in all competitions", with the bar slightly above 50%. My job never once came under threat.

So while you may get a poor bar rating for the FA Cup in isolation, I imagine that it is weighted much lighter for a title-chasing club in the overall stakes. I think Board Confidence, while still not perfect, is a massive improvement over 08. I mean they didn't even care about the League Cup at all.

The board recognise mitigating circumstances as well now. For example, in my current game with Yeovil, I crashed out of the League Cup in the first round when they wanted me to reach the second. They were unhappy, but recognised that defeat by Coventry wasn't a disgraceful result.

Sorry - I dont get this - Man U won three trophes in one year - the famous treble. If man u had lost in the semis of the FA cup - do you honestly think that the board would have given a monkeys?

Well, IRL you'd probably not hear "we expect our team to win the cup", but in general all the big teams want to challenge for the trophy. When you actually win the trophy they are pleased but, compared to smaller teams, not over the moon. The weighting for cup comptetitions is lower than for the league anyways.

Overall, I think the confidence module has made a huge step forward. The only thing I'm not happy with is that my strikers constantly destroy the "players" confidence as I can't get a decent average rating for those bastards

i won two cups last seaon on mine now the chairman wants the same,but if i dont, it don't mean i will be sacked.

I understand im not going to be sacked for it - and by the end of the season the board will probably end up being 'happy' with me - but it is still horribly wrong.

I would now put my self in the same category as the 'big' managers - ive won the league and the champions league twice in 4 years and taken newcastle from mid table to table toppers.

Do you think that alex ferguson or arsen or benitez gets told they have to win the fa cup?

Honestly?

And if I dont win it, and nothing happens - what was the point in telling me I had to wn it?

I would love this to be looked at - its kind of deflating to see the demand to win a specific cup (being told to win the league if you've had massive success/been given a huge budget is different).

I skipped 08 because of the boardroom stuff, its been improved here but its still not great.

Although I'm only 2 months / 7 games in I was slightly disappointed to see my board at Middlesbrough describe my performance as "slightly disappointing" despite being sat in 6th with 4 wins, 1 draw and 2 losses (one to Man U).

I realise it doesn't mean much in the scheme of things but it does diminish my enjoyment of the game, much as last year when I would get constant rumours of not having my contract renewed despite winning leagues/cups.

at juventus my board said they dont see the coppa italia as an important competition and therefore didnt care how i performed in it lol

There is a flaw with this whole confidence system when it comes to cup competitions.

It should be based on opponents rather than black and white "we expect you to get so far".

Example - Aston Villa normally are expected to do well in the FA and League Cup - but no concession is made by the board if they come up against a full strength Man U/Chelsea team in the early rounds.

I think there is now in 09 - I think I've seen my board say something along the lines of 'we hoped you'd go further but realise losing to such-and-such wasnt terriable' in a previous save.

Thing is, board confidence is just ever so slightly improved - it would have been nice if they'd worked on this feature a little more. One step forward I guess...

I had a blackburn game where I got knocked out in the third round by Man U and the board were unhappy

I agree that it's nonsense to say you're expected to win an individual cup competition.

League progress should be the only thing asked of you, and cup progress should be deemed a success or failure dependent on who you go out to.

If you're playing as Man United and you crash out to Arsenal at the Emirates in a closely-fought 3rd round match, there should be no hard feelings from the board.

If however you are at Old Trafford and Luton Town play you off the park in the 5th round, this should be deemed a disaster even though you got further in the competition.

It should be the manner of your exit that determines the board's happiness or otherwise. This shouldn't be hard to implement as it could be an extension of the existing board confidence feature which rates supporter happiness with your recent matches. Sometimes they're happy even with a defeat, and rightly so. Same should be true with the board's assesment of cup progress though.

Individual cups is a good idea I think. Like at Arsenal the board dont regard the league cup as important, which is good. I got knocked out in my first match against watford with my reserves and the board didnt care, but of course they wouldnt expect this in the FA cup.

Which do you think the Arsenal board will be happy with?

a) League cup 3rd round exit but win FA cup

b) Win League cup but 3rd round exit FA cup.

So as I say, I agree with cups rated individually.

I believe this escalation of expectation is to proportionately reflect the way some managers are victims of their own over-achievement.

Unfortunately, like so many of these features it is poorly implemented and lacks a personal touch that allows for true suspension of belief.

This one could be solved by a revised system of chairman personalities. Some are notably more patient and sympathetic, some are balanced, some are ruthless and disproportionately knee-jerk and some are just cretinous (in the case of elected officials) and misleading and so are many managers. You can as much role-play your part in the game not just simply experience it - a vital ingredient in a game that involves a simulated career and encourages you to achieve in a non linear fashion and progress toward a higher status represented by your achievement/s.

This lack of vibrancy and consistency permeates the FM series e.g. the game becoming progressively more difficult in such an inflexible, entirely predictable and excessively unrealistic fashion (who ever demands your team win the FA Cup? Such an idea is preposterous even with a top four club - especially if there are other targets such as ECL or the league). It struggles at times to convince you that you are actually involved in the day to day running of a football club and not just being kept amused while the next set of results are processed.

There are so many things that would make FM immersive and believable that S.I. consistently hams up or implements with all the flair and subtlety of Russell Brand's radio shows. It isn't that the ideas themselves are flawed, it is that they just lack that spark of ingenuity and originality that makes something truly special. Its almost as if you can see it all laid bare before you click the buttons: that process conducted from the brainstorming session through to final build as a totally regimented, linear and formalised cycle. You know its all a bit too binary, a bit sterile and impersonal.

Beginning with the basic use of language; uninspiring insipid catch phrases that whilst scoring a perfect A for relevance to the actual subject matter rate a deafening Z on the originality-O-meter. UI options that bear no relation to what they effect. Commentary in matches is utterly without variety, media comments and press conferences have absolutely no repeatability. Staff, chairman, managers etc. have no distinct personalities certainly not ones that dictate their decision making or response to situations; every manager appears to be a tactical genius according to and never variating from set formula. Neither do players if we're honest.

All of this has traditionally been excused by the excellent match engine and a suggestion that our expectations are too high, which I accept to a point: without any nice 2d graphics (like the wonderful photos and backgrounds of every stadia etc. in older versions that gave a very solid sense of movement between matches) and a very generic 3d implementation, no compelling audio updates for half a decade and such lack of finesse and polish to the user interface, it has become very much a game favoured by aspergers drones and statto nerds. Myself included. To the detriment of a much larger target audience who have in recent releases been withered under ever expanding levels of tedious micro management and time consuming chop, ever improving competition and ad hoc (not really very) new features that don't add so much as continually bore.

Yet, still, I love it. Why? I'm not sure, and I'm not sure that if I didn't have a decade of happy memories preceding each new iteration and the subsequent frustrations and let downs I would be interested to the extent I remain today.

I could do a better job than whoever is currently being paid 50k a year and tasked with conceptualising a totally engrossing football management experience and not just a skinned spreadsheet and database populated by 1's and 0's with some filler between results. The back end works fine, but the front end really needs a new approach and new enthusiasm and just 'adding' more things to the game doesn't make it more dynamic or compelling, it just makes it feel increasingly confused/cluttered and reactive not proactive as in the case of the 3d.

And if that's not scathing and ungrateful enough for you ..

I think we could have an approach which is a combination of individual and generic expectations, i.e:

Lets say you are Arsenal manager, the board will give instructions saying the League Cup is not important to them, so not to worry, but that they do expect a trophy in 1 of the other 3 competitions, and that they do expect at least 4th in the league, CL quaters, and FA Cup semis, so that way there are fair instructions to consider what is an acceptable season, whereby of course there are individual instructions for the competitions, but not requiring a specific victory in a specific competition.

Your Newcastle...

They're always banging on about how this is the season to bring Silverware to the park...

Les Girondins - completely agree with you! Very well said.

It pains me how poor the game is at drawing on a larger audience, its as if its specifically designed for stattos who have become used to its weaknesses. I wouldnt tame the game in any way, but I'd love to work amongst SI in an attempt to redesign elements and bring the whole thing up to date.

What do you do for a living?

I hate that too, I won the CL and the board were satisfied as they expected me to do well. However, they were upset at going out to chelsea in the QF of FA cup. Thats ********. If a team won the CL, the other comps would be irrelevant, regardless of who you are.