What would I look for, in staff attributes in an attempt to reproduce real club management?

[allyc31]

So reading Leadership by Sir Alex atm and he tells of an interaction he had with his then assistant manager and man who told Chick Young what time it was on tv, Archie "Tell him to go f himself" Knox

The point is, Archie Knox as his assistant felt that SAF was getting to involved in training and it should be left to the Assistant Manager to run the sessions. 

So, if I wanted the same relationship with my AM

1. What attributes would be best to create training schedules
2. What attributes would be best to arrange friendlies 
3. If I allow my AM to manage individual training, will they be smart enough to select the correct role or will I need to manage the individual training?
   1. And if they are not smart enough, how important is it outside of tactical familiarity, that a player is on the individual training for the position and role that they play

[NineCloudNine]

Tactical knowledge, man management, discipline, judging player ability, plus the attributes for whatever specific training you want them to do on top of creating schedules.

It helps if the Assistant has a preferred formation and playing style that matches how you want to play, though I would go for attributes over that personally.

I always do position/role training myself and I always set it to what I want them to play and never change it. I let the Assistant recommend specific focuses in the weekly meeting and accept if I agree; same for PPMs.

Friendlies aren’t important enough to consider Assistant attributes for.

[vrig]

18 hours ago, allyc31 said:

So reading Leadership by Sir Alex atm and he tells of an interaction he had with his then assistant manager and man who told Chick Young what time it was on tv, Archie "Tell him to go f himself" Knox

The point is, Archie Knox as his assistant felt that SAF was getting to involved in training and it should be left to the Assistant Manager to run the sessions. 

So, if I wanted the same relationship with my AM

1. What attributes would be best to create training schedules
2. What attributes would be best to arrange friendlies 
3. If I allow my AM to manage individual training, will they be smart enough to select the correct role or will I need to manage the individual training?
   1. And if they are not smart enough, how important is it outside of tactical familiarity, that a player is on the individual training for the position and role that they play

This is a cool idea and immediately reminded me of another exchange SAF had at United. When Carlos Queiroz turned up at Carrington, he went to see what the gaffer wanted doing for training. Fergie responded "If you don't know that, then why the hell did I hire you?"

Queiroz was from the same tactical school as Jose Mourinho, who had taken England by storm over the preceding couple of years, and Ferguson later said that he was as close as you could get to being the Man United manager without actually having the title.

The point of this little interlude is that what you could do is take a look at some of the in-game attributes of a coach whose approach you appreciate and then filter staff with similar strengths and tactical styles. The best and worst they'll do should be around the same as the AI.

[NineCloudNine]

Ferguson was brilliant at hiring Assistants who would bring new ideas and approaches - an example of him being way ahead of his time, as he was in many ways.

Contrast with Wenger, who over the years hired a series of yes men and became ever more entrenched and inflexible in his thinking.

Edited March 13 by NineCloudNine

[Delicate Dave]

I don't think it's a case of specific attributes that matter unless you are assigning that staff member to a specific task or advice. For example, if you want a staff member to employ your staff you look for the SA attribute and if you want them to do the contracts you look at the negotiations attribute. But apart from that I tend to want high numbers across the board but look for the bare minimum in fitness, and discipline. I used to look for the motivation attribute but after years of playing I think that does very little in training - don't know why. I certainly think when it comes to training your players to reach their potential then all the coaches are lumped together to get a total "push" attribute for the whole team.

But in general, the only way players get much better is by playing them and even that depends on the position & role to get the best. A potential world-class right winger won't become world-class if you play them at right-wing back. That's why the star rating (your best players rating) gets misunderstood. First of all, it's not just how well the staff member can rate potential, it's also the staff member's discipline and the player's attribute scores. For example, if the player is a great header but can't jump his current star rating might be *** but if you teach him to jump he has the potential to be ***** this I think is what the staff member is telling you, you just need to find it. So knowing your player's weakness is as important as knowing their strengths.  And I would say, maybe wrong, you don't change players in the general training but do it in the traits section. The traits section is a very underused part of the game. I think it has the most effect.

 

[vrig]

On 13/03/2024 at 10:27, NineCloudNine said:

Ferguson was brilliant at hiring Assistants who would bring new ideas and approaches - an example of him being way ahead of his time, as he was in many ways.

Contrast with Wenger, who over the years hired a series of yes men and became ever more entrenched and inflexible in his thinking.

I think Pat Rice was his assistant for something like 15 years. Steve Bould followed him and that was about it.

Less of a series of yes men and more of a failure to introduce any new ideas in any form.