Should Be Removed From FM

[wwfan]

In other words, it wasn't correct for you to say that you should never use it for a flaky squad. What you meant was that it wasn't appropriate for flaky members of a squad, which is a very different matter. Thank you for clearing that up.

I am (hard though you may find it to believe this) not trying to be awkward here. I have highlighted it because it goes to show that, if somebody who is as generally au fait as yourself with the inner mysteries of FM isn't crystal clear in his thinking about what's suitable or not, it leaves the rest of us ordinary mortals really struggling!

Essentially, your example raises for me the interesting question of whether a team talk is really what's going on at all here. What you've done is to give a lot of different individual talks. Now I can understand this as an approach perfectly well. However, one begins to ask oneself whether the 'team talk' option isn't essentially redundant with such an approach. What does this do over and above the individual talks? Your example suggests to me that you don't actually think it does anything at all. So why have a 'team talk' set of choices at all? Why not simply provide the opportunity for individual talks and avoid possible confusion?

In general, the relationship between individual and team in the game puzzles me. For example, the tactics wizard allows for team passing to be more direct as an option. How does this relate to the individual passing settings exactly? It isn't clear to me exactly how this works.

This isn't a semantic argument, for Pete's sake. It doesn't matter a jot whether your definition of flaky squad means 'everybody in the squad' whereas mine means 'a reasonable percentage of the squad'. The issue is simply between whether you'd use 'Don't let your performance drop' as a team wide talk, or whether you'd have to soften/harden it with individual attention. The more the squad gels/develops in professionalism, the less you'd need to soften/harden the message.

Eventually, a good manager will learn the relative strengths and weaknesses of member of his squad and learn to treat them in accord. For example, my squad breaks down like this:

First Team

GK: Reliable

DR: Reliable

DL: Needs the odd kick up the backside

DC: Reliable

DC: Reliable

DMC: Was prone to nervousness, but seems to be maturing into reliability

DMC: Occasionally complacent but generally reliable

AMR: Reliable

AML: Prone to nervousness against weaker sides, but tends to play well in big matches

AMC: Reliable

FC: Reliable

Subs

GK: Rarely plays but seems reliable when he does

DL: Reliable

DC: New signing, but reports suggest he is a big match player and thus far he seems solid

DMC: As above but doesn't speak the language

AMC/R: Streaky. Can be very good or very bad with team talks seemingly having little influence

AML: Used to struggle but maturing into reliability as he picks up the language

FC: Patchy first season but has come good this one. Seems to save his best for big matches

Youngsters

GK: Been solid in his few starts

DC: Generally does an OK job when called upon

DR: Played very well in his few starts

AMC: Seems to be maturing into reliability

AMR: Rarely lets me down but hasn't had any big matches

FC: Not really ready for the first team and will need careful handling if used

If I use my starting eleven, I pretty much expect determined professionalism and generally only need to use the overall team talk options. However, I need to keep an eye out for for the one or two problems that sometimes manifest and use individual team talks to combat them. If I'm playing a more experimental side, I tend to be far more encouraging and look out for all kinds of possible issues. What I choose to say is then bounced off individual performances and my interpretation of the match. I might not always get things right, but I tend to improve rather than handicap 2nd half performances. At the very least, I don't make things worse.

Hopefully this might help explain some of the richness in the team talk module.

As for the 'passing more direct' adjustment, it makes every player look to play more direct passes than the standard setting. For some positions it might add more directness than others, but that will be down to the overall passing logic of the formation. The lack of options in deciding this logic is currently a weakness in the TC and can hopefully be addressed in the future.

[phnompenhandy]

I found the opposite.

I was struggling at the bottom of League One with Northampton halfway through last season. Along with a change of tactics, I started letting my Assistant Manager set the opposition instructions, with a couple of additions as advised by my scout who watched the next opposition, and we shot up the table and just missed out on the playoffs.

So much depends on the personality/preferences of your assman. I've got a great one whom I can trust with OI recommendations - except that he's too keen on hard tackling so I take them out. I know his inclination; I know what advice to go with and what not to. And that's exactly as it should be.

And anyway, assman advice and OI's themselves are all optional - why would anyone want them removed from the game?

Rupal, nice to see you back. But hey girl, change the record. You could be copying&pasting your grumbles from a year ago. Move on!

[BoundedCascade]

I dont really want to remove anything but I do want to see a few things added. Dynamic country reputations and dynamic rivalries and Dynamic League reputations so if you take say Bohemians to the Champions League final or get deep into the Champions league consecutively more and more players want to start joining the league and not just the team.

As well since we now have the tactics wizard why not bring it into more minute detail such as Free Kick and Corner's wizards to go with ur tactics wizard. This way you can place players where you want them and decide via the wizard what you want to do with them. Obviously still have the advanced options as well.

[Rupal]

Hang on a minute wwfan. With great respect, you stated originally that it would NEVER be appropriate to use 'Don't let your performance drop' for 'a flaky squad', whereas it would be appropriate to use it in a situation where you held an undeserved lead. When I asked how you would deal with a situation where the squad was flaky and you held an undeserved lead (which was a perfectly reasonable thing to do given what you had said) it was you who retreated from your original sweeping statement and started giving examples of how you would deal with individuals. This is not mere semantics. What you said originally was apparently self-contradictory and that needed to be clarified to avoid misunderstanding. Don't shoot the messenger, please!

I'm afraid I don't really see the team talks module as having 'richness' in the same way that you do. The limited number of options quite frequently seems to me to mean that you just don't have a choice available which really reflects what you want to say. You are, indeed, reduced to attempting 'not to make things worse' to use your own phrase. Now that is what seems to make a fair number of people (including me) dissatisfied with the feature as it stands, judging from what they say.

As an aside, yesterday my husband and I went to watch Rushden and Diamonds against Gateshead (season ticket holders as we are). By an odd coincidence, we were winning 2-0 at half time but could have given a goal away and the feeling in the crowd seemed to be that we hadn't capitalised as well as we might have. We came out in the second half and eventually won 8-0. Whatever the team talk was, I wish I could replicate THAT in FM! But I bet it wasn't 'Don't let your performance drop'.........

Moving on, I'm still not 100% clear about the direct passing adjustment. Let's suppose that, in addition to using the TC, I make a further adjustment to my centre backs' passing by setting them longer because they are basically rubbish and if they don't hoof the ball they will mess things up for sure (I manage very bad lower league teams (eg Thurrock in my latest save)). Does the 'more direct' setting mean that they will hoof it even longer, or has this been over-ridden by the individual setting which I've done?

[Rupal]

Rupal, nice to see you back. But hey girl, change the record. You could be copying&pasting your grumbles from a year ago. Move on!

Well, thanks. But I'll move on when SI does the same and actually DOES something about the things which seem to aggravate people.

To take a petty example. Quite a lot of people grumbled last year about having to set 'Show onto weaker foot' in OI for each individual rather than being able to do it for everybody at the same time. People are still grumbling about it now. Perhaps they think if they nag on enough just possibly somebody might do something about it....??

Naive fools !!!

[wwfan]

Sometimes you have to read between the lines, Rupal. I try to give you as much context as possible. If I spent all day making sure there was no possibility of multiple interpretations for everything I try to explain, every post I wrote would be as long as TT&F.

I'm afraid I don't really see the team talks module as having 'richness' in the same way that you do. The limited number of options quite frequently seems to me to mean that you just don't have a choice available which really reflects what you want to say. You are, indeed, reduced to attempting 'not to make things worse' to use your own phrase. Now that is what seems to make a fair number of people (including me) dissatisfied with the feature as it stands, judging from what they say.

Basically, you are doing the following:

1: Being effusive

2: Praising

3: Encouraging

4: Focusing

5: Warning

6: Telling off

7: Throwing the hair drier

8: Letting things stay as is

Each action simply causes a reaction from each of your players related to match situation, match performance, individual performance, age, experience, gelling and personality contexts. It is additional to any tactical changes you might choose to make rather than being the key to 2nd half performance. Personally, I'd like half time to push your attention as much towards tactics and strategy as motivation, as by not doing so makes people think it is the team talk that is key.

Given that list of eight and remembering team talks are motivational tools only, I'd be interested in hearing what responses you think might be missing.

As an aside, yesterday my husband and I went to watch Rushden and Diamonds against Gateshead (season ticket holders as we are). By an odd coincidence, we were winning 2-0 at half time but could have given a goal away and the feeling in the crowd seemed to be that we hadn't capitalised as well as we might have. We came out in the second half and eventually won 8-0. Whatever the team talk was, I wish I could replicate THAT in FM! But I bet it wasn't 'Don't let your performance drop'.........

It may well have been. Pure conjecture that it wasn't. The manager could easily have warned the team for a less than convincing performance. He could have focused them. He could have praised them. He is likely to have made a few tactical adjustments to sort out the problem areas, which would have been far more important. However, we'll never know.

Moving on, I'm still not 100% clear about the direct passing adjustment. Let's suppose that, in addition to using the TC, I make a further adjustment to my centre backs' passing by setting them longer because they are basically rubbish and if they don't hoof the ball they will mess things up for sure (I manage very bad lower league teams (eg Thurrock in my latest save)). Does the 'more direct' setting mean that they will hoof it even longer, or has this been over-ridden by the individual setting which I've done?

Manually overriding the creator settings disables the shouts. If you want the defenders to hoof the ball all the time, use the 'Clear Ball to Flanks' shout or 'Pump Ball into Box'. The former will see them booting it to the wings, the latter down the middle.

[Rupal]

You actually haven't answered the question I asked about the passing adjustments (maybe I wasn't clear?). I wasn't actually asking about the shouts (although that's useful information), but meant this. If I have the TC setting to make the team play more directly and then set my central defenders manually to hit rather longer balls does this mean that the end result will be even longer (because of the 'more direct') or is this over-ridden because I've made a manual setting?

As far as the 'reading between the lines' thing is concerned, I will simply repeat what I said before. You made two sweeping statements and only after I queried the apparent difficulty did you go on to talk about individual settings. I'm not going to labour the point any more because it clearly has touched a raw nerve.

As far as what's missing is concerned, the apparent inability to say something like 'Stick with what you're doing' as a team talk springs to mind as one example. Doubtless people can think of various other things for themselves

[wwfan]

Manual settings override creator settings in every instance. Once you set something manually, the creator no longer does anything.

'Stick with what you are doing' has two team talk possibilities.

1: For the fans (useful when playing well but not leading)

2: None (useful when the scoreline is what you'd expect given the relatively poorer quality of the opposition)

Now, you may well have a case in arguing the semantics of the phrasing, but not that the function is absent. However, I believe we went through that last year.

[Rupal]

I really don't like 'none' as an option. I doubt very much that any rl manager would not say ANYTHING to the team at half time. Rephrase required, I'd say.

'For the fans' is interesting. That's when I begin to feel that we need some sort of guidebook as to what you mean when you are saying something apparently different in FM! From what you have said it looks as though 'For the fans' ACTUALLY means 'Keep it going, you've been unlucky'.

How is an FM ignoramus like me supposed to work that one out without help???

[wwfan]

None doesn't mean you are saying nothing. It just means you aren't making a motivational statement. Hence my wish for the half-time screen to highlight tactical and strategic options more thoroughly.

[Rupal]

None doesn't mean you are saying nothing. It just means you aren't making a motivational statement. Hence my wish for the half-time screen to highlight tactical and strategic options more thoroughly.

Well, you see, to my simple mind, 'none' really ought to mean 'none' - ie 'not any'.

It's this sort of thing which seems to me to be so unnecessarily confusing :confused:.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Remove OI, are you crazy?

They are one of the best recent new features, and make the game a lot more realistic. I use them every game, as every other person I know does.

Best 'new' features? Since when are they a new feature?

This is the trouble with users of this game, they don't realise when the interface is being changed to make it look like there are new features when actually they have always been there if you take the time to play the game properly!

This allows SI to get away with providing us with an interface update year after year instead of actually improving the game and countless people who haven't a clue what they are talking about come on here and say they are very impressed with new features.....urrrgh why do I bother. :confused:

[dking]

It's a game that has been successful by focusing only on the core aspects of football management, rather than gimmicky add ons.

Why would SI change a winning formula?

They could add to a winning formula. They don't have to change anything to the core game, and as for gimmicky add ons, couldn't the 3d match engine be classed as that? It didn't seem to affect any sales.

I definitely think they could add a couple more gimmicky things just for a bit of fun and have the choice to use it or not like the 3DME for example.

[itsallaboutthierry]

Well, you see, to my simple mind, 'none' really ought to mean 'none' - ie 'not any'.

It's this sort of thing which seems to me to be so unnecessarily confusing :confused:.

Equally counter intuitive and confusing is the fact that if you want a player who has scored or assisted in the first half to perform well in the second you have to say "You have faith". Instinct and common sense tells you that you should praise the player with 'pleased' or 'delighted' to let him know that what he is doing is good and boost his morale and hence performance with praise. 'You have faith' would seem to be a team talk reserved for players who haven't done anything wrong but aren't shining in the game. Or players who have made a mistake but are otherwise playing ok.

In fact 'You have faith' works in both these situations too (see http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=182360)

It's the extra level of comprehension required that makes the team talk feature so frustrating. It is not as simple as saying what you think ought to be said in the real life situation. You first have to consider that and then think about what the game is really offering you the option to say. You have to ignore the words and consider the motivational consequence which I think catches a lot of casual players out and destroys the simulation. You're reduced to figuring out what the game wants you to say not what you would say if you were a manager in that situation.

That said the only way I can think of solving the problem is the sports psychologist assistant idea which sadly doesn't fix the core issue just offers a workaround

[Rupal]

You're reduced to figuring out what the game wants you to say not what you would say if you were a manager in that situation.

Now that is my gripe in a nutshell. It's what wwfan has (in another context) denigrated as 'gameplay' rather than 'simulation'. It's no different in essence from 'breaking' or 'cheating' the ME. THAT's why I don't like team talks as they are currently featured.

[OFS]

Managers IRL don't like press conferences either! So in that sense it's realistic! Obviously they should stay but SI should try to improve on them, which is difficult due to the limitations of a computer game against real life. The only things i disagree with about them is the impact they have on players moral etc. I doubt many players even hear what was said by their manager in a press conference let alone be effected by it. Team talks are much more important.

Overall though this is the best version of FM i have played and i'm loving the new tactics system and touchline shouts as the sliders were always a complete mystery to me and seemed so unrealistic. A more instructions based system is much better to understand and i'm personally doing alot better in this department as a result.

I'm also watching all games in full now for the first time, which i think you have to do really and again is much more realistic as this is what happens in real life. I find i'm kept busy with keeping tabs on players condition and ass man feedback, especially his recommendations for opposition instructions and of course just being their to react to injuries and changing the way you want your team to play ie. going a goal in front and then changing the team mentality to be more defensive etc.

[Cougar2010]

I really don't like 'none' as an option. I doubt very much that any rl manager would not say ANYTHING to the team at half time. Rephrase required, I'd say.

'For the fans' is interesting. That's when I begin to feel that we need some sort of guidebook as to what you mean when you are saying something apparently different in FM! From what you have said it looks as though 'For the fans' ACTUALLY means 'Keep it going, you've been unlucky'.

How is an FM ignoramus like me supposed to work that one out without help???

PaulC stated that if you don't want to select any of the options you should use none.

None does not mean nothing, it means "None of the others"

[OFS]

Now that is my gripe in a nutshell. It's what wwfan has (in another context) denigrated as 'gameplay' rather than 'simulation'. It's no different in essence from 'breaking' or 'cheating' the ME. THAT's why I don't like team talks as they are currently featured.

I disagree to be honest, i think if your looking at the right things then the option you want to say to any particular player is there for you to say. It's all about motivation i find, which is what team talks are all about in real life at the end of the day. Aswell as tactics obviously but you have to get your players motivated to get the best out of it. Basicly if a players playing with confidence i say nothing to them at half time, try to encourage the ones playing ok and get stuck into the ones looking complacent or having a poor game. I suppose that could be seen as getting repetative but then you could say that about any area of the game and i havn't got bored by it yet.

[Rupal]

PaulC stated that if you don't want to select any of the options you should use none.

None does not mean nothing, it means "None of the others"

Well that amounts to not saying anything at all, surely, as there aren't any other alternatives on offer.

Or have I missed some subtle difference between 'saying nothing' and 'not saying anything' ???:confused:

Paul C appears to be saying that 'none' is what you use when none of the others seems suitable. Wwfan said earlier that it's what's appropriate when the scoreline is what you'd expect given the relative strengths of the teams. This doesn't seem very consistent to me somehow.

[Rupal]

I disagree to be honest, i think if your looking at the right things then the option you want to say to any particular player is there for you to say. It's all about motivation i find, which is what team talks are all about in real life at the end of the day. Aswell as tactics obviously but you have to get your players motivated to get the best out of it. Basicly if a players playing with confidence i say nothing to them at half time, try to encourage the ones playing ok and get stuck into the ones looking complacent or having a poor game. I suppose that could be seen as getting repetative but then you could say that about any area of the game and i havn't got bored by it yet.

Yes but itsallaboutthierry's point is that the game appears to want you to use things like 'You have faith' in situations where the words don't appear to be especially appropriate with their normal meanings. He doesn't think that this is very satisfactory and I must say that I agree with him.

[aditya]

press conference is pretty annoying and time killer, but i think gamers should be given preference if they want this or not

[Cougar2010]

I'm not giving an opinion just stating what was said.

Well that amounts to not saying anything at all, surely, as there aren't any other alternatives on offer.

No I don't believe so.

As humans in a real life situation we would choose our words from huge variety available to us, add in the tone of voice & attitude and you have many thousands of impressions we could give to a team.

Its impossible to code them all into software so SI have coded 5-10 general ones but if a situation arises within FM where you feel none of the coded options are suitable the advice is to use "None"

Or have I missed some subtle difference between 'saying nothing' and 'not saying anything' ???:confused:

Paul C appears to be saying that 'none' is what you use when none of the others seems suitable. Wwfan said earlier that it's what's appropriate when the scoreline is what you'd expect given the relative strengths of the teams. This doesn't seem very consistent to me somehow.

There is no difference between "Saying nothing" & "Not saying anything" but within FM "None" does not mean either of those. It means "None of the other options"

It does seem to suit situations though where you would say "Do whats expected of you" which is what WWFan has said which would be correct as "Do whats expected" isn't an option.

[itsallaboutthierry]

press conference is pretty annoying and time killer, but i think gamers should be given preference if they want this or not

Team Settings>Assistant Manager takes control of press conferences.

I know that your Assman may not deliver them perfectly 100% of the time but I know I can't so I'm happy to be able to be able to pass the buck on this one.

[earmack]

Id take press conferences and team talks out, they are so important to how teams play, this is a reasonable feature that ends up punishing the user over the course of 50+ games a season. I shouldnt feel like im going to wreck my teams performance by sending my assman. The best alternative is to no comment every question, but this would take upwards of 2 hours a season. I actually have no problem using both to my advantage but its just ...boring. And on the occasion where you say something fairly reasonable like you hope your team can keep up their form and it hits the morale/motivation of the whole squad, thats just stupid and counter-intuitive.

[Rupal]

I'm not giving an opinion just stating what was said.

No I don't believe so.

As humans in a real life situation we would choose our words from huge variety available to us, add in the tone of voice & attitude and you have many thousands of impressions we could give to a team.

Its impossible to code them all into software so SI have coded 5-10 general ones but if a situation arises within FM where you feel none of the coded options are suitable the advice is to use "None"

There is no difference between "Saying nothing" & "Not saying anything" but within FM "None" does not mean either of those. It means "None of the other options"

It does seem to suit situations though where you would say "Do whats expected of you" which is what WWFan has said which would be correct as "Do whats expected" isn't an option.

What it boils down to is something which I said earlier.

SI is trying to do something (provide meaningful team talks) using inadequate means (limited, somewhat ambiguous multiple choice options). As a result, we have something which doesn't work very well, which is why people like itsallaboutthierry let the assman do them.

[wwfan]

It is the misperception as to what the team talk is actually for that is still the problem here. All it is is a motivational statement. It is far less significant than tactical changes.

Looking, for example, at Rupal's wish for the option 'Stick with what you are doing'. This is not a motivational statement. However, it can be the informing principle behind many of the options when used in the right context. For example, for a mid-table Premiership side:

3-0 Away at Old Trafford having played Utd off the park: Thrilled

2-0 at home to Arsenal: Pleased

1-0 at home to Man City: Encourage

2-0 at home to Portsmouth having generally controlled the match: None (no motivational statement required as the team is playing no better and no worse than expected)

Looking at the Portsmouth game again, the following permutations are possible. Again, some might be informed by the principle of 'stick with what you are doing':

1-0, played OK: Don't get careless

2-0 up, not playing well: Don't let your performance drop

1-0 up, lucky to be winning: Disappointed

1-0 up but deserved a lot more: Encourage

0-0 but playing well: For the fans (maintains focus)

0-0 but playing badly: Disappointed

Losing and playing badly: Disappointed or angry

Losing but playing well: We can win this

3-0 up and completely on top: Pleased

5-0 up and dominating every aspect of the match: Thrilled

Understanding the context enables you to make the correct motivational speech. You can also look at the different psychological condition of individuals to further tailor the talks. However, 'Stick with what you are doing' has no meaning as an isolated statement.

What does need to receive far more focus and is, in my opinion, the main reason why everybody thinks motivational team talks are overly important, is the tactical aspect of team talks. In all of the above situations, the manager should be deciding what to do tactically as well, thus:

3-0 Away at Old Trafford having played Utd off the park: Thrilled: Shut up shop

2-0 at home to Arsenal: Pleased: Drop deeper and look for counters

1-0 at home to Man City: Encourage: Push for a second

2-0 at home to Portsmouth having generally controlled the match: None: No tactical changes

1-0, played OK: Don't get careless: Become slightly more defensive in outlook

2-0 up, not playing well: Don't let your performance drop: Try to control possession

1-0 up, lucky to be winning: Disappointed: Become more aggressive

1-0 up but deserved a lot more: Encourage: Keep on playing the same way

0-0 but playing well: For the fans (maintains focus): Keep on playing the same way but be ready to ramp it up later

0-0 but playing badly: Disappointed: Become more aggressive

Losing and playing badly: Disappointed or angry: Become more aggressive

Losing but playing well: We can win this: Become more aggressive

3-0 up and completely on top: Pleased: Try to control possession

5-0 up and dominating every aspect of the match: Thrilled: Conserve energy as the job's done

However, because the team talk page only focuses on the motivational, the need for tactical instruction is lost. Users also translate this into the feeling that motivational speeches carry far more weight than they actually do.

[Lankylars]

It is the misperception as to what the team talk is actually for that is still the problem here. All it is is a motivational statement. It is far less significant than tactical changes.

Looking, for example, at Rupal's wish for the option 'Stick with what you are doing'. This is not a motivational statement. However, it can be the informing principle behind many of the options when used in the right context. For example, for a mid-table Premiership side:

3-0 Away at Old Trafford having played Utd off the park: Thrilled

2-0 at home to Arsenal: Pleased

1-0 at home to Man City: Encourage

2-0 at home to Portsmouth having generally controlled the match: None (no motivational statement required as the team is playing no better no worse than expected)

Looking at the Portsmouth game again, the following permutations are possible. Again, some might be informed by the principle of 'stick with what you are doing':

1-0, played OK: Don't get careless

2-0 up, not playing well: Don't let your performance drop

1-0 up, lucky to be winning: Disappointed

1-0 up but deserved a lot more: Encourage

0-0 but playing well: For the fans (maintains focus)

0-0 but playing badly: Disappointed

Losing and playing badly: Disappointed or angry

Losing but playing well: We can win this

3-0 up and completely on top: Pleased

5-0 up and dominating every aspect of the match: Thrilled

Understanding the context enables you to make the correct motivational speech. You can also look at the different psychological condition of individuals to further tailor the talks. However, 'Stick with what you are doing' has no meaning as an isolated statement.

What does need to receive far more focus and is, in my opinion, the main reason why everybody thinks motivational team talks are overly important, is the tactical aspect of team talks. In all of the above situations, the manager should be deciding what to do tactically as well, thus:

3-0 Away at Old Trafford having played Utd off the park: Thrilled: Shut up shop

2-0 at home to Arsenal: Pleased: Drop deeper and look for counters

1-0 at home to Man City: Encourage: Push for a second

2-0 at home to Portsmouth having generally controlled the match: None, No tactical changes

1-0, played OK: Don't get careless: Become slightly more defensive in outlook

2-0 up, not playing well: Don't let your performance drop: Try to control possession

1-0 up, lucky to be winning: Disappointed: Become more aggressive

1-0 up but deserved a lot more: Encourage: Keep on playing the same way

0-0 but playing well: For the fans (maintains focus): Keep on playing the same way but be ready to ramp it up later

0-0 but playing badly: Disappointed: Become more aggressive

Losing and playing badly: Disappointed or angry: Become more aggressive

Losing but playing well: We can win this: Become more aggressive

3-0 up and completely on top: Pleased: Try to control possession

5-0 up and dominating every aspect of the match: Thrilled: Conserve energy as the job's done

However, because the team talk page only focuses on the motivational, the need for tactical instruction is lost. Users also translate this into the feeling that motivational speeches carry far more weight than they actually do.

wwfan, your description should be stickied somewhere as I feel it does a good job of illustrating just what team talks are - talks, not tactical instructions, and both have to be used in conjunction for best results.

[grade]

Understanding the context enables you to make the correct motivational speech. You can also look at the different psychological condition of individuals to further tailor the talks. However, 'Stick with what you are doing' has no meaning as an isolated statement.

What does need to receive far more focus and is, in my opinion, the main reason why everybody thinks motivational team talks are overly important, is the tactical aspect of team talks. In all of the above situations, the manager should be deciding what to do tactically as well, thus:

3-0 Away at Old Trafford having played Utd off the park: Thrilled: Shut up shop

2-0 at home to Arsenal: Pleased: Drop deeper and look for counters

1-0 at home to Man City: Encourage: Push for a second

2-0 at home to Portsmouth having generally controlled the match: None: No tactical changes

1-0, played OK: Don't get careless: Become slightly more defensive in outlook

2-0 up, not playing well: Don't let your performance drop: Try to control possession

1-0 up, lucky to be winning: Disappointed: Become more aggressive

1-0 up but deserved a lot more: Encourage: Keep on playing the same way

0-0 but playing well: For the fans (maintains focus): Keep on playing the same way but be ready to ramp it up later

0-0 but playing badly: Disappointed: Become more aggressive

Losing and playing badly: Disappointed or angry: Become more aggressive

Losing but playing well: We can win this: Become more aggressive

3-0 up and completely on top: Pleased: Try to control possession

5-0 up and dominating every aspect of the match: Thrilled: Conserve energy as the job's done

This is what I really don't get. Why use things like Encourage, Dissapointment or Thrilled, that creates more confusion then before and since removing Team talks is out of the question, why not use: "Conserve energy as the job's done", "Try to control possession" or "Keep on playing the same way but be ready to ramp it up later"? it makes more perfect sense and a lot easier for the users.

I really don't understand this need of SI over-complicating things.

Like Press Conferences. Why does it need to be 5 Answrs choices that go to Highly agree to highly disagree? I don't understand why did they removed the one question 5 different phrases like was in FM05 to FM08. It was simple making expansion of those questions so that couldn't be so repetitive, but they where intuitive replies. But no they overcomplicated things yet again.

What I do I think should be removed from FM? Over-complicating features that could be lot more intuitive and simpler and BUGS. What I mean of bugs is fix once and for all the reoccurring bugs, like Super GK, One-on-Ones, Injuries and Corner exploitation.

[itsallaboutthierry]

It is the misperception as to what the team talk is actually for that is still the problem here. All it is is a motivational statement. It is far less significant than tactical changes.

Understanding the context enables you to make the correct motivational speech. You can also look at the different psychological condition of individuals to further tailor the talks. However, 'Stick with what you are doing' has no meaning as an isolated statement.

What does need to receive far more focus and is, in my opinion, the main reason why everybody thinks motivational team talks are overly important, is the tactical aspect of team talks. In all of the above situations, the manager should be deciding what to do tactically as well,

However, because the team talk page only focuses on the motivational, the need for tactical instruction is lost. Users also translate this into the feeling that motivational speeches carry far more weight than they actually do.

So team talks are a tool to get the players' motivation right for the scenario they find themselves in. Does a successful team talk leaves the team motivated and results in your tactical changes being carried out more successfully? It seems like on the one hand you're saying team talks are purely a motivational statement (as I've bolded in the above quotation), but equally saying they should be considered to have an impact on your tactical change? Surely the two are completely independent and it is the coincidental timing that makes them appear intertwined (they happen at half time in your examples). Otherwise you're suggesting to hold off on tactical changes until half time so that you can make the changes more effective through use of a team talk? (second bolded quotation).

Sorry that I'm taking so many different meanings from your statement and probably overthinking things but this is the danger of writing theory on a forum! Are team talks purely a motivational tool or do they have an impact on tactical changes? If they are underpowered and fairly innocuous on a match outcome compared to tactical changes then is there really a need for them in their current form? If they're overly important then are they too ambiguous in their effect? I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle but surely the fact that a discussion about team talks can continue for so long means that they need an overhaul.

[nine_iron]

I dont use PCs because they are boring and useless.

:O

How can someone say that!!

[wwfan]

This is what I really don't get. Why use things like Encourage, Dissapointment or Thrilled, that creates more confusion then before and since removing Team talks is out of the question, why not use: "Conserve energy as the job's done", "Try to control possession" or "Keep on playing the same way but be ready to ramp it up later"? it makes more perfect sense and a lot easier for the users.

They are tactical changes. To do that you need to use the creator and shouts or understand and use the sliders. For example, 'Conserve energy' would translate into 'Retain Possession, Stand Off, Take a Breather and Drop Deeper'. These type of things could only be implemented if the sliders were disabled and everything was done through the creator as they'd be standardised settings. Currently, they'd be impossible to implement.

The motivational tools are there to ensure your players play as well or better than their average ability. If a player is nervous or complacent, or just having a random bad game, you have the opportunity to change things around by altering his mindset. A good tactic filled with fully motivated quality players will enable you to sit back and relax. However, they aren't always fully motivated and can often play below their ability. This is often enough to turn a 2-0 win into a 0-0 draw. If you make things worse at half time, a should-be 2-0 win can turn into a 1-0 loss. The motivational tools are there for you to reduce the possibility of that happening.

What I do I think should be removed from FM? Over-complicating features that could be lot more intuitive and simpler and BUGS. What I mean of bugs is fix once and for all the reoccurring bugs, like Super GK, One-on-Ones, Injuries and Corner exploitation.

I think you need a far greater understanding of how development works. There's no feasible way of fixing these bugs 'one and for all' as they can be generated by a host of different things. Everything is interlinked and fixing Action A can easily break Action B.

So team talks are a tool to get the players' motivation right for the scenario they find themselves in. Does a successful team talk leaves the team motivated and results in your tactical changes being carried out more successfully? It seems like on the one hand you're saying team talks are purely a motivational statement (as I've bolded in the above quotation), but equally saying they should be considered to have an impact on your tactical change? Surely the two are completely independent and it is the coincidental timing that makes them appear intertwined (they happen at half time in your examples). Otherwise you're suggesting to hold off on tactical changes until half time so that you can make the changes more effective through use of a team talk? (second bolded quotation).

1: Yes

2: Yes

3: Not a part of the change, but a tool that will facilitate any and all tactics you implement being more effective

4: No, you can make changes at any time. However, the team talk gives you the chance to make changes and fix motivation. If you have made in-match changes to stop a bad performance, half time is the chance to turn things around and play the way you want to again.

Are team talks purely a motivational tool or do they have an impact on tactical changes? If they are underpowered and fairly innocuous on a match outcome compared to tactical changes then is there really a need for them in their current form? If they're overly important then are they too ambiguous in their effect?

1: Purely a motivational tool that makes any tactic more effective

2: They do make a difference, but by no means as big as some people make out

3: They aren't overly important. Only one or two can be accused of ambiguity.

[itsallaboutthierry]

Thanks for the reply wwfan

Also well done for finding a sensible format to answer my string of questions! You managed to answer them very successfully thanks again.

[Beardeye]

Player 1: Core player, scored one of the goals but hasn't done much else of note: None

Players 2-5: Core Players having average games: Team = Don't let your performance drop

Player 6: Core player, played OK but looking complacent: Disappointed or Team

Player 7: Core player, high determination, playing badly: Disappointed (if he's complacent as well, then Angry)

Player 8: Bit-part veteran, out of practice, made a few mistakes: Have faith

Player 9: Raw kid, scored and assisted: Pleased

Player 10: Raw kid, playing nervously: No pressure

Player 11: Raw kid, playing badly but not demotivated: Have faith

Thanks for this and good example of how to micro manage personalities and team talks.

I also admire your patience. I have seen expert witnesses lose their temper when barristers unecessarily rip them apart for apparent inconsistencies in statements which are not that relevant to the overall point they are trying to make. You do well to keep your cool.

[Liam Ross]

Nothing should be removed.

I agree with you that it would be good to build your own facilties but is that really a managers job?

[garyfm]

I would like to see more reactions to press conferences then it would make them more fun.

I don't think build your own stadium should be on the game and I think chairman should stick their nose in when you're buying players