Team Talks

I get asked quite often how I do team-talks, truth is it varies, but the following is at least a decent rule of thumb that's done well for me:

Pre-match:

• Team > AGRESSIVE tone > EXPECT WIN.

• Then do individual talks for all those that are either UNAFFECTED or NEGATIVELY AFFECTED, as follows:

• Individual > ASSERTIVE tone > HAVE FAITH.

Half-Time:

If winning by a good margin, or beating a tough opponent:

• Team > CAUTIOUS tone > DON'T GET COMPLACIENT.

• Then do individual talks for all those that are either UNAFFECTED or NEGATIVELY AFFECTED, as follows:

If individual has POOR level of performance:

• Individual > AGRESSIVE tone > NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

If individual has FAIR level of performance:

• Individual > ASSERTIVE tone > HAVE FAITH.

If individual has GOOD level of performance:

• Individual > PASSIONATE tone > PLEASED.

If winning narrowly, or drawing, or losing:

• Team > AGRESSIVE tone > NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

• Then do individual talks for all those that are either UNAFFECTED or NEGATIVELY AFFECTED, as follows:

If individual has POOR level of performance:

• Individual > AGRESSIVE tone > NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

If individual has FAIR level of performance:

• Individual > ASSERTIVE tone > HAVE FAITH.

If individual has GOOD level of performance:

• Individual > PASSIONATE tone > PLEASED.

Full-Time:

Won narrowly, or drew, or lost:

• Team > AGRESSIVE tone > NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

• Then do individual talks for all those that are either UNAFFECTED or NEGATIVELY AFFECTED, as follows:

If individual has POOR level of performance:

• Individual > AGRESSIVE tone > NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

If individual has FAIR level of performance:

• Individual > ASSERTIVE tone > HAVE FAITH.

If individual has GOOD level of performance:

• Individual > PASSIONATE tone > PLEASED.

Won by a decent margin, or against a tough opponent:

• Team > PASSTIONATE tone > WELL DONE.

• Then do individual talks for all those that are either UNAFFECTED or NEGATIVELY AFFECTED, as follows:

If individual has POOR level of performance:

• Individual > AGRESSIVE tone > NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

If individual has FAIR level of performance:

• Individual > ASSERTIVE tone > HAVE FAITH.

If individual has GOOD level of performance:

• Individual > PASSIONATE tone > PLEASED.

NOTES:

• This is a rule of thumb guide, this will not work certain player personalities wont, you'll need to gradually identify these players and note down what works best with them for future use.

• There are obvious exceptions to pre-match talk, for example, demanding a win against Barcelona if you are Scunthorpe isn't going to go down well.

Finally:

I've noticed that players I've kept for 3 or more seasons actually seem to adapt to my team-talks making them more effective. For example if I'm winning 3-0 at half-time, I can now actually be 'aggressive' and say 'not good enough' and get a very positive response! Has anyone else noticed their players adapting to their strict style?

So even against say a team challenging for the title, you would say aggressively that you expect to win? Even if you are yourself a title challenger, this kind of approach must be in need of some excellent mental attributes from your players?

This isn't a dig, I'm just querying.

Team talks should be based on how the team is playing and not scoreline. You can be playing poor and winning 2-0. It's the manner in which you are actually playing what counts when giving team talks. Not a lot of people seem to take this into account.

crickey, I'll stick to the tactic up/downs section I think, it's a harsh world in here!

Just sharing a rule of thumb that works brilliantly well for me, and dozens of others in my tactic threads, so the proof is in the eating.

I've explained the obvious exceptions and that it;s a rule of thumb...it's of course about performance and performance isn't simply about 'winning' or not....but I'm giving people a very simple formula that they can follow easily and not use the ass-man (as most people sadly do).

There are obviously better ways, but unfortunately most people that play this game like to 'click play', which means they dont actually look at stats and performance, so this is a simple overview to encourage them to interact with the game some more.

The example you use is very dramatic. But say you were Manchester United, playing Manchester City, would you still use an aggressive tone and say 'I expect a win'?

crickey, I'll stick to the tactic up/downs section I think, it's a harsh world in here!

Just sharing a rule of thumb that works brilliantly well for me, and dozens of others in my tactic threads, so the proof is in the eating.

I've explained the obvious exceptions and that it;s a rule of thumb...it;s of course about performance and not goals...but most people dont look at performance, I'm trying to encourage those people that just play 'click to win' (which is a sadly large proportion) to at least not leave their talks to the ass man by giving them a decent and very simple formula to follow.

Over reaction much? Peoples only offering advice to your thread for people who are reading it. It's nothing personal against you.

So even against say a team challenging for the title, you would say aggressively that you expect to win? Even if you are yourself a title challenger, this kind of approach must be in need of some excellent mental attributes from your players?

This isn't a dig, I'm just querying.

The example you use is very dramatic. But say you were Manchester United, playing Manchester City, would you still use an aggressive tone and say 'I expect a win'?

I would - it's very easy to fix the situation with a few players that respond badly with their individual talks.

Plus I've noticed that your players seem to gradually learn to adapt to the aggressive style - players I've had in my team for years now react possibility to aggression very nearly every time, where-as players that are new transfers seem to take a more negative view. It's only recently I've noticed this, so I'm convinced something in player/manager relations makes the players adapt to your style if it's consistent over many years.

For example, my highly successful Norwich team in 2016, now get an aggressive team-talk even if we're facing Barce and we're 3-0 up at half-time! Not that I suggest this in usual circumstances.

Over reaction much? Peoples only offering advice to your thread for people who are reading it. It's nothing personal against you.

No not really, I responded with 'crickey' hardly a plethora of swear words and abuse now is it! As for people offering advice, the first post is a good point which I've answered in my previous post. The post your querying was entirely in response to your post.

You were very quick to jump on the 'you're wrong' side of things, despite your point already having been touched upon in the post. In fact it even details what to say to each player based upon their individual performance.

No not really, I responded with 'crickey' hardly a plethora of swear words and abuse now is it! As for people offering advice, the first post is a good point which I've answered in my previous post. The post your querying was entirely in response to your post.

You were very quick to jump on the 'you're wrong' side of things, despite your point already having been touched upon in the post. In fact it even details what to say to each player based upon their individual performance.

Where did I say you was wrong or indicate you was wrong? I didn't, so don't throw your toys out of the pram ffs. I was just offering some advice to whoever was reading the thread. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick some how, not sure why though as I aimed nothing at you.

I was just making sure people were aware that it's the actual performance that effect team talks and not scorelines which is what majority of people think.

Where did I say you was wrong or indicate you was wrong? I didn't, so don't throw your toys out of the pram ffs. I was just offering some advice to whoever was reading the thread. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick some how, not sure why though as I aimed nothing at you.

I was just making sure people were aware that it's the actual performance that effect team talks and not scoreline which is what majority of people think.

Yes you did indicate that...

Team talks should be based on how the team is playing and not scoreline.

Is a straight forward statement suggesting I hold the contradictory view.

I in-fact haven't mentioned score lines, and although it is true that you can play well very and lose, this should still be met with disappointment - unless it was against 'tough opposition' as stated in the OP. If you play well and lose to a lower team, then I'd still be annoyed at my players.

Which was further compounded by:

Over reaction much?

Which is just a thoroughly childish response.

Yes you did indicate that...

No I didn't.

Is a straight forward statement suggesting I hold the contradictory view.

I in-fact haven't mentioned score lines, and although it is true that you can play well very and lose, this should still be met with disappointment - unless it was against 'tough opposition' as stated in the OP. If you play well and lose to a lower team, then I'd still be annoyed at my players.

I just wanted to make people aware of this bit, whats wrong with that? Not once did I say you was wrong or incinuate you was, so not sure what you're actual issue is here. But not to worry I'll stay clear of your thread as you don't appreciate someone adding comments to it.

How would you judge 'performance' then Cleon out of interest? Shots, clear cut chances, possession? Or would you just use common sense and take an overview if all match stats?

I have to say that, although I prefer having a general rule to stick to, I'm finding myself just using common sense more and devising my team talks on a situation by situation basis.

To be honest, I quite like the idea of starting to do that with my tactics too (i.e. having attack, defend and neutral setups to switch between as needed), but have never managed to get it working in the past.

You have to take everything into account. So to judge a performance you need to look at shots, possession, player ratings and so on. I pretty much agree with some of what Fuss said even though he's took exception and presumed I said he was wrong when I didn't. But many people on these forums do team talks based on the scoreline and wonder why 2nd half things change and they end up losing etc.

I was just making sure people were aware that it's the actual performance that effect team talks and not scorelines which is what majority of people think.

------------

as for tendencies I have noticed, it seams like a determined/professional squad responds a lot better to a harsh/demanding style of team talk, while ambitious/ballanced/players with low determination seam to need a lot more cuddeling

I would - it's very easy to fix the situation with a few players that respond badly with their individual talks.

Plus I've noticed that your players seem to gradually learn to adapt to the aggressive style - players I've had in my team for years now react possibility to aggression very nearly every time, where-as players that are new transfers seem to take a more negative view. It's only recently I've noticed this, so I'm convinced something in player/manager relations makes the players adapt to your style if it's consistent over many years.

For example, my highly successful Norwich team in 2016, now get an aggressive team-talk even if we're facing Barce and we're 3-0 up at half-time! Not that I suggest this in usual circumstances.

I see where you are coming from here. I understand how players of different experience, reputation etc. can affect how they react, but with this being more of a guide I thought it'd be necessary to point out that in the start of a save with a club, I think some players would be highly likely respond negatively to such an approach and perhaps another method is in need to avoid such circumstances. I think this would be more appropriate than 'fixing' the situation with an individual talk.

I personally go by as many things as I can. Recent performances, the players, the opposition for pre match. Half time it's more about how the team played, how they reacted to my pre match talk and how the general game panned out and the post match talk I try and build morale up without bringing in complacency to the mix. A lot of my talks recently have been very arm around the shoulder type, keeping the players happy at all costs, just because the players that I have aren't the greatest at dealing with harsh team talks. As much as I'd love to throw the half time oranges smack in the face of my centre back for being a buffoon, that approach won't work for the players that I have (and my current manager reputation either, which is pretty low).

I find that your team will play worse when nervous than when they are complacent, however that is just a hunch and I don't have any evidence to present that would back that up, it's just my opinion on how I see my team play with the two emotions. I've seen technically adept players completely fail to control even the simplest of balls when nervous or without confidence, something I personally haven't seen with a complacent player.

In the latest versions of FM, a one size fits all approach just doesn't work as it did before, which I find fantastic as someone who wants to have to adapt rather than rely on a tried and tested method

You can be successful in FM by choosing more carefully your time to use Aggression. Agression can cause players to suffer a loss of confidence. But Just Imagine it. It's Saturday afternoon, you walk into the dressing room and you start getting Agressive with your player, telling them you expect to win. Now let me tell you, Jose Mourinho didn't use aggression with his players at the start of each game, but he did show assertiveness and passion and there is no doubting his success or his ability to get the best out of his players.

lol @ Agression before even seeing how the team will play, but if it works well for you and you attribute that to your success, then fair play.

I am not sure that the players would be very pleased, having a manager who gets aggressive with them before the game even starts...

Lots of people do it differently however, and I am sure that it works just as well for them too:

I notice that you made the point that the player become more attuned to your aggressive nature and dont react as much, is that because they are used to it now, so it does not have the desired effect any more? I am sure i have read in tips somewhere that you should choose the moments to be aggressive (hair dryer) but dont use it all the time or it will have less affect.

There is no right and wrong way to do the team talks, after all, there have been many successful managers, doing team talks in different ways and styles and different reaction and still all been highly successful.

I do use aggression in my team talks, depending on if its needed, but not before the game has even begun......

I agree with Cleon and she summed it up perfectly when she said, "You have to take everything into account. So to judge a performance you need to look at shots, possession, player ratings and so on. I pretty much agree with some of what Fuss said even though he's took exception and presumed I said he was wrong when I didn't. But many people on these forums do team talks based on the scoreline and wonder why 2nd half things change and they end up losing etc."

Had a quick look over what has been said and I don't think any of these have been asked so just a couple of questions:

1) What would you suggest for cup finals? Being aggressive and telling them to expect a win in a cup final I'd imagine would add pressure, but I've not been in the situation to try it so I don't know?

2) What about 2-legged games?

In the career i'm playing now i started from italian forth division and in some years i managed to bring the team to serie A.

In the last couple years for me in pregame was enough to calmly say 'impress me' to have half the team motivated and a few assertive 'i have trust' to motivate others. I think i have been aggressive just a couple times in midgame talk, when the team were playin badly against opponent i had reasonable hopes to get a result against and never ever been aggressive in single talks, an assertive 'i dont like what you did' was usually more than enuough to have them fired up. In post game i have most of times been kind apart a couple times when an aggressive head wash was a must. well done, you have been unlucky, you were underdogs but you did your best; that was myusual post game speech and everyone was happy and motivated for next game.

Player loved and respected me and i always got 110% from them.

Mid season during my serie A season, with the team doing very well, i accepted an offer from Genoa, an average strenght italian serie A team, and i noticed that whatever thing i were saying to the team or to single players was simply ignored by them, be it calm assertive or aggressive.

Obviously i had a great charisma with my old squad while i was a perfect stranger, with a low reputation too, with my new one; after all thinking 'who is this one and what in hell does he want from me' is what i would probably have tought were one of the players.

I'm not worried that much because i'm sure that if i start making results with new team in a few months they will start listening to me.

Manager vs team relationships are VERY important in team talks, i think even moer that what you say and how you say, it unless you obviously say something really dumb.

I'm surprised and a bit amazed by the method. No doubt I'd been thinking too narrowly about how team talks work this year. Thanks for the information FuSS. It's especially curious that your players seem to adapt positively to it and react better and better over time.

I think this team talks would work in a long run and like Fuss said players need to adapt your "aggresive" talks.

I think this team talks would work in a long run and like Fuss said players need to adapt your "aggresive" talks.

Players don't adapt to team talks as the effects don't accumulate. Team talks effect morale which isn't adaptable. It can change but there is nothing for it to 'adapt' to. The effects of team talks are instant.

Players don't adapt to team talks as the effects don't accumulate. Team talks effect morale which isn't adaptable. It can change but there is nothing for it to 'adapt' to. The effects of team talks are instant.

I wouldn't have though so either - but it must end up appearing that way due to some of the other components (team rep, player relations, etc).

But the teams I've played with and delivered aggressive team-talks with, definitely become more accepting of aggressive team-talks as time progresses. New players introduced to those teams in later seasons, are then consistently the only ones to be 'harder' to motivate using an aggressive manner.

This may not be part of some directly coded adaptation to team-talks, but the end result is definitely the same - motivating the team with an aggressive approach becomes much more effective season after season for existing players.

I wouldn't have though so either - but it must end up appearing that way due to some of the other components (team rep, player relations, etc).

But the teams I've played with and delivered aggressive team-talks with, definitely become more accepting of aggressive team-talks as time progresses. New players introduced to those teams in later seasons, are then consistently the only ones to be 'harder' to motivate using an aggressive manner.

This may not be part of some directly coded adaptation to team-talks, but the end result is definitely the same - motivating the team with an aggressive approach becomes much more effective season after season for existing players.

I'm sorry but it can't do as you cannot get players to adapt to different tones. They never adapt to them. What you are suggesting is that managers and players have personalities outside of the attributes and hidden stats. Which they don't.

I wouldn't have though so either - but it must end up appearing that way due to some of the other components (team rep, player relations, etc).

But the teams I've played with and delivered aggressive team-talks with, definitely become more accepting of aggressive team-talks as time progresses. New players introduced to those teams in later seasons, are then consistently the only ones to be 'harder' to motivate using an aggressive manner.

This may not be part of some directly coded adaptation to team-talks, but the end result is definitely the same - motivating the team with an aggressive approach becomes much more effective season after season for existing players.

I think that more than adapt to aggressive, or in my personal situation soft team talks, it's just that players adapt to the manager, when their realtionships become better and better, and become easier to motivate whatever the style used.

I'm saying that because i'm noticing that my players after some good results in the league, some good chats about performance and tutoring are becoming more responsive to my pre game talks; i cannot have all of them motivated yet but it's no more like i were talking in an empty room

I think that more than adapt to aggressive, or in my personal situation soft team talks, it's just that players adapt to the manager, when their realtionships become better and better, and become easier to motivate whatever the style used.

I'm saying that because i'm noticing that my players after some good results in the league, some good chats about performance and tutoring are becoming more responsive to my pre game talks; i cannot have all of them motivated yet but it's no more like i were talking in an empty room

That's down to the rep when you start the game. When you start as sunday league football experience the players ignore you more and are hard to motivate due to you not been proven etc.

That's down to the rep when you start the game. When you start as sunday league football experience the players ignore you more and are hard to motivate due to you not been proven etc.

True, but i'm not a summer league rep manager; i'm a manager that led my team from forth division to serie A, so i think i have a solid national reputation, sure not the same of Capello or Trapattoni but comparable to that of many other young managers in top division.

When managing my old team, where i was in the preferred person list of most of my players, it was very easy to motivate my team; when i changed to a more reputable but not at the top team, where i was unknown, i noticed that player mostly ignored me.

I like this teamtalk-formula of yours Fuss!!! I have just one little question. Which player ratings do you consider POOR, FAIR or GOOD? I would say 1 to 6,7 (Poor), 6,8 to 7,4 (Fair) and 7,5 or higher (Good)? What do you think?

True, but i'm not a summer league rep manager; i'm a manager that led my team from forth division to serie A, so i think i have a solid national reputation, sure not the same of Capello or Trapattoni but comparable to that of many other young managers in top division.

When managing my old team, where i was in the preferred person list of most of my players, it was very easy to motivate my team; when i changed to a more reputable but not at the top team, where i was unknown, i noticed that player mostly ignored me.

i am thinking of giving the team talks to assistant as no matter what i say someone seems to take offense to it in some way.is this a good idea? by the i'm spurs in my first season in december and im top of the leaugue

i agree 100% with fuss about the team getting used to how you do your teamtalks. I can use aggressive tones when i have 2+ lead against better teams. There might be a few bad responds but they can be even out

I've taken dartford from bottom of english football to win PL using the aggressive approach with great succes.

So as the OP said it's a thumb rule not one of the 10 commandments.

And +1 to the OP for being a mature arguer.

I think team talks need to be fair...if you can find a way to be fair AND surprise your players with something a bit different I think it works wonders:

In my game I drew Birmingham at home in the early stages of the League Cup. I rested my first choices, played my reserves who were probably the better team, they hardly had a shot and I lost 1-0 much to my disgust. So I locked the dressing-room door, piled up my old copies of S.Fraser threads and set them alight. Nobody was upset...they knew they'd let the club down. The thing was it was the first time I'd been aggressive in 15 months and I went on a 4-5 month unbeaten run in all competitions.

Next time I lost I said something nice like "unlucky" because they'd played OK. I got nothing but green arrows, boosts to confidence etc. and carried on the good form.

So I look for the slightest excuse to vary my talks.

One further point...I've noticed "have faith" has especially good results with players whose morale is "fairly good" or worse. Once in a while it can work on somebody with higher morale but normally it doesn't (for me anyway).

Team talks just needs to be taken out of the game I think. It's just too much of a hazzle and gamble. My opinion at least...

Anyone got any tips for the right teamtalk for when bringing subs on? I normally leave them but anyone got any tips here....

assertive>have faith.

I get asked quite often how I do team-talks, truth is it varies, but the following is at least a decent rule of thumb that's done well for me:

Huge hint.

i agree 100% with fuss about the team getting used to how you do your teamtalks. I can use aggressive tones when i have 2+ lead against better teams. There might be a few bad responds but they can be even out

I've taken dartford from bottom of english football to win PL using the aggressive approach with great succes.

So as the OP said it's a thumb rule not one of the 10 commandments.

And +1 to the OP for being a mature arguer.

I agree Agger and bottom line.. it works and it's easy to memorize.

Interesting ideas about Team Talks and its certainly another area of the game that I could do better on- one of the main problems I have with Team Talks is that if my team are not leading heading into half time so many of my players get an attack of the nerves and either "look uninterested" or "play nervously"- I have tried the "Have Faith" with the nervous players but they still seem to panic.

Im not really sure how to remedy this problem

What about "no pressure" if someone is nervous?

What it really comes down to is knowing your players and which way to approach a conversation with them. I for example take notes for the reaction from players on how they responded to individual talks and team talks.

I assigned a color to every style of team talk and asigned a number to every different dialog chiose and at the end I put either a +, 0 or -.

For example. Schmelzer, M.: 3 +

Which would mean I used a team talk that was calm, gave the command "I expect a win" and got a positive response.

If I used individual team talks I usually put them in brackets behind the team talk number.

This way you will pretty fast learn which player reacts to which talk in a certain way.

I am doing amazingly for home games with this team talk approach, but on away games i just can't wrap up wins, even if my team is playing greatly... it just seems that my old approach was better (cautious show me what you can do-something like that, i translate from italian).

Anyone else?

As is my right, I will disagree with this method.

I used to try be Passionate/Assertive/Aggressive because it just seemed stupid to be calm on the sidelines (look at the top managers, they all scream on the sidelines).

But if I look in game, as an unproven manager with big names around me - the Calm approach really has worked out a lot better. Players are still not motivated to play for me, but at least their moral increases. I've started growing into Passionate team talks as the players have began to respect me.

The Assertive/Aggressive tones I use when I'm being negative - bad performances. It makes no sense to me to scream at someone 'I HAVE FAITH IN YOUR ABILITY', to be me that's something said with the arm over the shoulder "relax kid, you have all the talent in the world, ignore what the media says and go out there" - in the same way, "I expect a performance from you" doesn't seem right unless its said in a Passionate or Assertive tone (dependent on whether I think the guy needs a kick up the arse or some encouragement).

I tend to avoid extremes in most elements of the game, so Reluctant and Aggressive are usually avoided but both of them I would use in a negative sense.

Also, I'm not sure the game saves up Team Talks so that the players have a memory on them. So I don't think they get used to you shouting at them, this means that I don't think that players 'learn to respond' nor do I think it serves as a 'surprise' since each Team Talk is independent of the others other than through those previous talks affecting the moral of the team going into your current talk.

How on earth are you supposed to give a have faith talk at full time? It is not an option.