Player condition - how does it work?

So far in my playstyle (copied from online references) I tend to start players with 92% fitness or better.

What is realistically the difference/what outcome should I expect in game terms, between starting 3 identical players in everything but condition. Starting suarez with 85% condition, 92% condition and 100% condition?

Since I've witnessed players that are nervous or have made a mistake, come up winning the match for me I almost never substitute underperforming players, especially if they are the team's star. (correct/wrong?)

So far I only substitute tired-prone players that I want to preserve for the next match. (correct/wrong?)

Finally what should I expect in the following 9 cases? who would likely play better in each case of different physical condition?

I still look forward to some feedback

I edited the screenshot:

I suspect that case 1,2,3,5,6,9 are clearly in favor of the first team player so I edited it.

It's much easier to get your head around if you simplify things. Condition represents how tired a player is. When players are tired, they are more likely to perform poorly, make mistakes and get injured.

You can't tell which player will perform better in any given match by looking at condition alone. You also need to consider the relative difference in attributes between the players, their moods, their fitness for the role on the team, etc. Even if you managed to chart it all out, every last variable, and could tell exactly which player to play when, random chance would have a lot to say about their performances in any given game.

You just need to keep your players in good condition to make it more likely that they will perform well and not hurt themselves. There are no hard and fast rules about at what condition you shouldn't play your starter, although many players, myself included, do have a particular percentage that they use as a guideline.

It's much easier to get your head around if you simplify things. Condition represents how tired a player is. When players are tired, they are more likely to perform poorly, make mistakes and get injured.

You can't tell which player will perform better in any given match by looking at condition alone. You also need to consider the relative difference in attributes between the players, their moods, their fitness for the role on the team, etc. Even if you managed to chart it all out, every last variable, and could tell exactly which player to play when, random chance would have a lot to say about their performances in any given game.

You just need to keep your players in good condition to make it more likely that they will perform well and not hurt themselves. There are no hard and fast rules about at what condition you shouldn't play your starter, although many players, myself included, do have a particular percentage that they use as a guideline.

I understand and I agree with whatever you have written. What I am asking is to find out, if they exist, some rough guidelines because looking at a number (100 or 92 or 80 or 75 or 70 or 60 or 50) I only understand a relative fatigue.

For example why do people that have won everything suggest 92% as the magic number when deciding to start someone or bench him?

Do you have any rough guidelines that you are using?

I imagine that 92% is used because somebody charted out that's a sweet spot for having it most likely that the player will get through the game without condition dropping down to orange. I really don't know as I don't know where you got that number.

I use 95%, which isn't a large difference really. I use it primarily because that's what I've always used. There's no real method behind it. I didn't think through it logically as the perfect number to maximize performance. It's just a number that I like because it normally allows me to have no more than a few backups in the starting lineup at any given time. It helps me to rotate my lineups regularly and give everyone enough playing time to keep them match fit and happy at the club. It doesn't always work out like that, but that's the general idea. I don't bother with always having the best lineup for every game. I save that for extremely important games, but if I have one of those coming up, I'll figure prior game lineups out to make sure my first 11 is fresh for the big game.

I don't play any player lower than 91% if I can, and tend to sub them if they reach the 60's, if I can. The latter seems to be a good point to sub if you want to have that player in good condition for the next game at all (that usually means in 2 or 3 days if you play in the PL and in a European cup).

I'll play any player 91%+ for condition and the Fitness column lists them as "Match Fit". Below that, the Fitness column lists them as "Tired", which obviously doesn't sound good.

cheers that is exactly what I was looking for - rough guidelines!

EDIT: HUNT3R if you sub based on condition, what is your magic number? Or do you sub based on performance?

Methos. Your opening posts don't really work. Sorry to be blunt.

The reason they don't work is because a first team player might be a World Class player and might also be a very average player. It's exactly the same when talking about youth players. You have very good youth players and very bad youth players. To say that a youth player is better than a first team player when the first team player drops below xx fitness just doesn't work at all. It's just not like that.

I am playing a save which means that I regularly play youth players in my senior line-up, but they don't play just because the first team players are tired. If that were the case I would just have a larger squad of first team players as money isn't an issue.

I try not to play players who are below 95% condition when the match starts. In reality this means that they are usually 98-100% condition and there is only 1 single player who I can recall playing at under 95% condition in recent years. It's not that the youth player will perform better, it's just an opportunity to both give experience to the youth player, but also ensure that for the next game the first team player will be at closer to 100%, (and will perform at closer to their optimum level). I do this in the knowledge that other teams might have better players 1-11, (they often do), but nobody has what are effectively 2 quality starting XI's and some talented youngsters to come in as and when required. It means that some games I play are complete walkovers despite a number of youth players featuring. The key is to get the balance right.

[Edit]One reason why my figure may be higher than others is because of my aggressive style of play. It means that for the most part, my subs are not used to change things on a tactical basis or bring on fresh legs. They are simply used to stop players who have already been booked, from being sent off. By doing this it allows be to keep playing ultra-aggressively, even after a number of players have been booked. I regularly have to sub 2 players at half-time and it's not unheard of to make all 3 subs at the break. As a result of this, I think I want my starting condition to be higher, in the knowledge that there will be little scope to improve things late on. If I was to be playing in a different way, then it's quite possible that my 95% figure would be lower.

Squad management is an enormously undervalued part of this game. Time and time and time again I see people in this forum especially complaining about this or that and while it used to be the case that "it's your tactics", now it far more often seems eve n to be something more basic than that.

Even if all players are fit and I have both squads to choose from, I will be thinking to myself, can I start a youth player in this game?

You ask a question about Suarez at 85%, 92% and 100% condition and I would refer you to my easlier advice that my aim is to never start a player under 95% condition. If a player is also struggling with mft%, then they simply must be 100% condition fit for me. (Having said that, It's often harder at the very beginning of the season or after International fixtures for me). Playing players from the bench is defferent because the opposition will have a lower % condition when the sub is introduced, (everything is relative you see), and it's why substitutes often seem to have a large impact on a game, (at least i find they do). The suggestion that you would start a player at 75% condition or even lower completely bemuses me.

Have you ever tried it? Try it and see what happens. Then come back and tell us all how you got on.

I wasn't aware that there was a golden figure of 92% being mentioned by others, but I personally wouldn't agree with that at all. Maybe this os one of the reasons I suffer so few injuries compared to the masses who claim of massive injury bugs.

While others use a 92% figure though, (and I use a 95% figure), please remember that everything is relative. If you are playing a team who is all at 100%, then that's what your squad needs to be at to compete on an even footing. If you are not then the opposition will simply start with an advantage. If however they start players below 90%, (you need to keep an eye on it), then yes absolutely that is a HUGE opportunity to exploit that area, (and keep on exploiting it).

While a lot of players are too lazy to use OI's I use them in every single game, and if I see a player below 90% then my eyes light up. I will absolutely chase, harry, kick and harangue that player in an effort to eke the absolute most out of the sitiuation. A lot of people are simply to lazy to bother with OI's, (even if they have noticed the condition in the first place).

Little things matter in this game.

[Edit2] ps. I make 3 subs every single time I play. Not some of the time. Not most of the time. Absolutely EVERY single time I play. As mentioned above it's often down to a basic requirement to keep 11 players on the pitch, but it's also about mft% levels and importantly condition% levels for the next game. I hear a load of people saying that their lone strikers don't score. I don't have that problem and I'm sure that part of that is down to me subbing my best striker off when I think the game is won, (subs permitting of course). While it not only gives an immediate boost in terms of his replacement having better condition %, (and also keeps the sub match fit), but it also hugely increases the condition of the starting striker for the next match. I can't really keep playing the same starting Xi in each match if I want to stick to my 95%. If however he scores 2 first-half goals and I am brave enough to take him off at HT, (risky I know), then i can ensure that he will also start the next game.

cheers that is exactly what I was looking for - rough guidelines!

EDIT: HUNT3R if you sub based on condition, what is your magic number? Or do you sub based on performance?

I don't have any criteria for making a sub. There are a lot of factors.

Depends if I'm winning. I usually have one or two youngsters on who will need games.

If condition is low, say around 65%, I'll sub usually if I have a suitable sub on the bench.

Performance again depends on whether I'm winning or not. I'll sub bad performers if I'm losing, but if I'm winning by 2+ goals, I'll sub the good players off and give my rotation players a run and a chance for the poorer performers to improve.

It'll all also depend on whether there's an important game in 2-4 days. In those cases, provided my 1st team plays, I'll sub off the important players I'll definitely need for that game.

@ Jimbokav1971 I don't disagree with whatever you just typed.

The meaning of the screenshot was not necessarily to start players. It was a combination of what we call a truth table in boolean algebra (so I don't miss any case) and it involved a scenario that at the 60th minute of a match those were the probable cases of the two players' fitness:

if I posted screenshots of the two players in question would it be easier to conclude which choice would be better?

The reason I am not trying is because I don't have a means to test it. I've seen extremely tired players score winners and I've seen extremely fit players play horribly.

I always try to start my players with at least 95% match fitness and 95% conditioning.

If this is not possible due to reasons such as fixture congestion, then at least 90% for both.

I have always managed Liverpool and find that with a big squad like they have at most top clubs you should nearly always have a 100% fully fit team to choose. Perhaps 2-3 times a season, usually after a good cup run or at the end of season fixtures pile up most successful clubs experience I will have to field a player with 95% fitness but usually I have his replacement on the bench ready to come on in the second half. I sub my players when they reach 72-73%, usually around the 68th - 73rd minute and find that this gives them ample time to regain their fitness levels within 5 days.

@ Jimbokav1971 I don't disagree with whatever you just typed.

The meaning of the screenshot was not necessarily to start players. It was a combination of what we call a truth table in boolean algebra (so I don't miss any case) and it involved a scenario that at the 60th minute of a match those were the probable cases of the two players' fitness:

if I posted screenshots of the two players in question would it be easier to conclude which choice would be better?

The reason I am not trying is because I don't have a means to test it. I've seen extremely tired players score winners and I've seen extremely fit players play horribly.

Form, morale/focus and skill have a larger impact than condition. I have two XI's, one with younger players under development and one with more experienced players. At any time it will be unlikely that everyone in the 1st XI are in good form (I usually take red development arrows as a sign they are not), and it could then be a good idea to let one of the 2nd XI guys get the chance instead, despite the gap in ability.

When jadedness sets in, the player is unlikely to play to the max of his ability. This is one of the reasons I rotate the 1st and 2nd XI every other match except when there's a big game coming up. I don't even look that much at condition. The goal is to be unaffected by the tough conditions towards the end of the season, where the AI teams often collapse and I trudge on.

The reason I am not trying is because I don't have a means to test it. I've seen extremely tired players score winners and I've seen extremely fit players play horribly.

It can't be that horribly coded, or else it wouldn't make much sense. Why would an unfit player not score a goal vs. the more fitter one? Why would a fitter player per default perform better than the one less so? He could be inconsistent, feeling pressurized, be in bad form, not having the required physical attributes to excell physically anyways. As various modifiers, such as match preparation for specific areas which reportedly is a temporary boost to attributes relating to the situation (i.e. anticipation boosts during set pieces), this likely is a dynamic thing. For condition itself, it likely knocks off on physical attributes. But as the match simulation still goes through each move of a match, the definite outcome of each situation or overall match performance is impossible to completely predict, and shouldn't be. Most logically you should expect him to suffer in terms of his physical traits though, which for someone like Robben would still mean decent compared to other players, likely, unless he's hopelessly desperate for a full rest.

I vaguely remember wwfan once telling about an observation regarding a striker of his, and that striker's behavior. If given a specific instruction he would behave wildly adventurous, but it only was this one striker (that is all the combinations of attributes that would make him up). When he took this to Paul Collyer, the chief coder after all, he apparently was puzzled likewise, and gave insights into that things just aren't that black and white and that easy to predict. Which sounds a nightmare in terms of coding and testing and balancing probably, but could equally attributed the lengths SI are going to somewhat decently emulate the ambiguity of football management. Some can deal with that, some expect FM to be a bit more "gamey" and predictable and black and white. I can sympathize with either camp, but FM has always moved clear into the former camp, always. By giving it all away, on the condition topic at hand, if that was possible, there would disappear all kinds of discussions that real managers also have in the real world of management. Some would fit their players only when they are completely match-fit, some would still consider their key players even if the doctor advices them to do otherwise. Biggus' approach for instance is awesome, sounds absolutely logical and coherent with his goal in mind (keeping an edge over rivals come the final days of the season), but is no doubt barely the only one. And shouldn't be.

It can't be that horribly coded, or else it wouldn't make much sense. Why would an unfit player not score a goal vs. the more fitter one? Why would a fitter player per default perform better than the one less so? He could be inconsistent, feeling pressurized, be in bad form, not having the required physical attributes to excell physically anyways. As various modifiers, such as match preparation for specific areas which reportedly is a temporary boost to attributes relating to the situation (i.e. anticipation boosts during set pieces), this likely is a dynamic thing. For condition itself, it likely knocks off on physical attributes. But as the match simulation still goes through each move of a match, the definite outcome of each situation or overall match performance is impossible to completely predict, and shouldn't be. Most logically you should expect him to suffer in terms of his physical traits though, which for someone like Robben would still mean decent compared to other players, likely, unless he's hopelessly desperate for a full rest.

I vaguely remember wwfan once telling about an observation regarding a striker of his, and that striker's behavior. If given a specific instruction he would behave wildly adventurous, but it only was this one striker (that is all the combinations of attributes that would make him up). When he took this to Paul Collyer, the chief coder after all, he apparently was puzzled likewise, and gave insights into that things just aren't that black and white and that easy to predict. Which sounds a nightmare in terms of coding and testing and balancing probably, but could equally attributed the lengths SI are going to somewhat decently emulate the ambiguity of football management. Some can deal with that, some expect FM to be a bit more "gamey" and predictable and black and white. I can sympathize with either camp, but FM has always moved clear into the former camp, always. By giving it all away, on the condition topic at hand, if that was possible, there would disappear all kinds of discussions that real managers also have in the real world of management. Some would fit their players only when they are completely match-fit, some would still consider their key players even if the doctor advices them to do otherwise. Biggus' approach for instance is awesome, sounds absolutely logical and coherent with his goal in mind (keeping an edge over rivals come the final days of the season), but is no doubt barely the only one. And shouldn't be.

Yes. Until I have a 2nd XI that is competitive enough to give me at least similar quality against most opponents in the league, I have a rather mediocre start to most seasons. In addition, the whole purpose of playing pre-season friendlies is to have all 25 players in the 1st team squad 100% match fit. The assistant is incapable of doing this, and the result is often loss of points the first 5-6 matches of the season when I field unfit teams. It looks like I must take control of the friendlies myself. Another issue is that 25 matches in a season is not optimal for player development, unless they are very professional. The fact that my strikers rarely win top goalscorer awards and such doesn't bother me much but would be undesirable for others I presume. No team in real life does this, so it is a bit unrealistic - which doesn't bother me at all.

I pick the player with the highest condition for the position to ensure the team gets a good rotation going.

When subbing, the magic number is whoever has the lowest condition at the 70 minute mark.