A Closer Look at Motivation.

[SFraser]

Just had an interesting experience regarding 'motivation/morale which i thought i'd share as I've enjoyed following this thread of late

Playing as arsenal, season 1, 14 games in and undefeated. Morale across the whole team was excellent. I decided to criticise both Adebayor and Arshavin in the media (choosing 'playing slightly within themselves' for both) as they had both dropped off in terms of goals, assists and ratings in th past 5 games. Their responses were identical and followed this basic pattern in the media and player feedback: "Adebayor responded positively to the managers criticism....he felt the managers praise was slightly harsh considering he felt he had been playing quite well....but accepted that he could get his head down and play better" (not the exact words, but you get the point I'm sure). Now this was a pretty standard 'contradictory' feedback from the players. Both of their morale dropped slightly as a result, and both personal pages showed they felt their manager's criticism was slightly harsh. So at this point i'm thinking i might have chosen the wrong option.

Next game against Man U at home, I tell them both that I 'have faith'. They respond well, both showing 'motivated' in the in game feedback. They go on to score 2 goals between them, with both goals involving both with assist and goal. I go on to win 4-0. So now I'm thinking despite the initial feedback, my tactic was successful because i got the desired response in the end.

Your thoughts?

While I consider Motivation and Morale to be distinct I also find that the media interaction system between games and the teamtalk system within a match to be two near identical systems, to such a degree that I use a similar method of matching performance ratings for specific personalities to specific media interaction comments, just like I would match performance ratings for specific personalities to specific teamtalks. My squad is generally of a similar personality so for example a few days prior to a big game I will do the rounds of my entire squad and comment on their recent performances, matching my degree of criticism or praise to their recent form. This will occasionally throw up the odd negative response but through a period of trial and error I now know more or less exactly what to say to each player irrespective of recent form to get a reaction from them.

From what you say appeared in your players personal screens it sounds like you did indeed choose the wrong comment. A well judged comment should have resulted in a "desire to play better in the future" irrespective of whether it was criticism or praise. Misjudge praise and the player will "feel he doesn't have to do much" and misjudging criticism will result in "feels the managers criticism was slightly harsh". It seems like you chose the "Below Par" comment rather than the "Acceptable Performance but room for improvement" comment. I myself found that comment level hard to judge as below a form rating of 7 was to me likewise a below par performance.

The explanation for the behaviour of your players is something that ties straight into Motivation and Performances, and is an area of great interest to me recently, Important Matches and Consistency. These are two attributes whose absence shows and if you are unaware of their existence or indeed of their function and manifestation; if you know they are around but never take any heed of them, then they will leave you thinking that the game is rigged so you never win a Cup, bugged because your players are erratic, or that your tactics are completely inept on the big stage/versus run of the mill opponents. These attributes and these attributes alone can turn great players into duds, a run of the mill striker into the leagues top goalscorer or a cup hero, they can turn the third best squad in the league into a Title Winner, the greatest Cup Side in the country or leave them languishing in mid table. If you think PA, Tactics, Determination and Personality are important wait untill you can spot the impact of the consistency attribute on your league challenge, or you have a 30 Million Pound, Important Match 10 Centre Back up against Fernando Torres and Steven Gerrard in the European Cup Final. In some ways these attributes are unarguably the most important attributes in a players profile.

I do not know the attributes for your players, but it looks to me like both players have low Consistency and high Important Matches. That would immediately explain their slump in form and their subsequent return to explosive life. From what you have said in your post which leads me to believe you got their media interaction wrong but still managed to produce a performance from them, it seems like any interaction from you towards these players prior to this game would have been irrelevant. These players would have performed against Manchester United no matter what you said. Where these guys do not perform is against lesser sides week in week out.

You understand that you need to manage these players Motivation and Morale, and you know how to do it, barring the occasional experimental mistake. What you do not know is when to do it. These players do not need motivated for the big games, they need motivated for the little games. It is another great subtlety to man management in FM09. Incredibly hard to spot if you are not aware of it or looking out for it. These guys need their form called it into question before a Home game against Hull, or Away to Wigan. They need pumped up for the trip to Birmingham. You definately have the right track in mind, you just misjudged the context, both in the choice of interation and understanding of when it was necessary. This is not a criticism of you for this is perhaps the most difficult subtlety to peice together from the attributes and mechanics of Motivation and performances, atleast that I am aware of at the moment

[Ukchris]

I've always avoided player media interaction with the plague. I've had poor responses the few times I have tried it in the past and the fear of a negative response has so far outweighed the potential benefit in my mind, causing me to simply not try. It's become an area of the game I just don't touch. Now I'm starting to feel that I'm missing out, and where I get a 0-0 draw I might be able to turn that into a 1-0 win if I could increase motivation through the media. It could make the difference between finishing 5th and finishing top 3 and with me avoiding it I'm pretty much ignoring an important aspect of the game.

I'm going to give it a go now, and see what I can do. I expect to get some negative responses at first but hopefully I can work out which players need praise or criticism at certain times, and to what extent, to give them a performance boost.

Just need to keep my fingers crossed that testing it won't ruin my season

[SFraser]

dz47 it seems I misread you slightly. You have chosen the correct interaction for your players if they expressed a desire to play better in the future. The requirement to motivate players prior to the correct challenges for them personally still exists, but it may not apply to your players in question. Hopefully my explanation of consistency and important matches and their effect on the relevant timing of motivation interaction will still be of some help.

[dz47]

SFraser

Thanks for the two responses, and yes your feedback is very useful to me. Your comments on consistency and important matches are of great interest to me. I have wondered for a while now why these two critical stats are 'hidden', while attributes such as determination, teamwork etc are visible. What i mean is you could mount a pretty strong argument that all of these kinds of attributes should be visible for well known/older players or players that have been heavily scouted. I know that you can get scouts to give reports on consistency and big matches, but this doesn't always happen. My argument is basically that i can see no consistency (no pun intended!) in the game logic to have consistency and big matches hidden. And yes no doubt you are right that these stats play a very important part in the game with regard to players performance. I believe that if such stats were visible, the player would have better feedback with regard to if/how they have influenced the players motivation (eg with my example, I currently can't know for sure if it was my player interaction that got them to perform or their hidden stats for big games).

The 2nd point i wanted to make was regarding the media interaction. The issue i have with this feature is that it is currently the only way of interacting with the players outside of game day. This becomes a big problem for two reasons. Firstly, if you employ a fairly heavy squad rotation policy, the option to comment in the media is rarely available, so the feature becomes less useful. Secondly, the ambiguity of the options makes choosing the right option more difficult than it should be. Again using my example, what i really wanted to say to Adebayor was something like "you've only scored 6 goals in 14 games, and haven't scored in the last 4, and this is below par. Despite the fact you are playing ok, i expect you to up your performance and output". As it stands, i chose the closest option to this that i think i can, but how the player interprets the choice I make does not often seem to match up to expectations. This is why the apparently contradictory feedback from th player leaves me guessing as to whether i should use the same approach again in future, try something else, or just not bother!

[SFraser]

I have wondered for a while now why these two critical stats are 'hidden', while attributes such as determination, teamwork etc are visible.

I would imagine the reason for this is that they are so important to a players overall performances that making them visible would mean the human manager never bought an inconsistent player. If you could see these attributes it would completely disrupt the realism and challenge of the game. You would not be able to turn up at Cup Final day with your league winning side and then lose is the most horrificly complacent manner. The fact that they exist and are hidden is what gives "flavour" to the game, what makes managing at any club a challenge, what makes transfers a lottery, etc. By keeping them hidden the game becomes more realistic.

The 2nd point i wanted to make was regarding the media interaction. The issue i have with this feature is that it is currently the only way of interacting with the players outside of game day. This becomes a big problem for two reasons. Firstly, if you employ a fairly heavy squad rotation policy, the option to comment in the media is rarely available, so the feature becomes less useful. Secondly, the ambiguity of the options makes choosing the right option more difficult than it should be. Again using my example, what i really wanted to say to Adebayor was something like "you've only scored 6 goals in 14 games, and haven't scored in the last 4, and this is below par. Despite the fact you are playing ok, i expect you to up your performance and output". As it stands, i chose the closest option to this that i think i can, but how the player interprets the choice I make does not often seem to match up to expectations. This is why the apparently contradictory feedback from th player leaves me guessing as to whether i should use the same approach again in future, try something else, or just not bother!

I agree with you here. It is such a cunning little system that it deserves to be fleshed out and expanded upon if possible.

[dz47]

SFraserI guess I can understand the reasons for consistency and big games remaining hidden from a gameplay point of view (eg to make the game harder), but not really from a realism point of view. I think that players in real life are often judged on such things as consistency and big game performance, and these factors do all go into the hat when considering a player’s overall quality etc. For example, rightly or wrongly someone like Ronaldo has a reputation of going ‘missing’ in big games; while someone like Gerrard is regarded as probably more consistent (these are just two examples off the top of my head and might not be the best, but you hopefully get the drift). Now these are somewhat subjective observations (as are all the player stats in the game), but you would be able to establish some level of consensus between the ‘haters and fanboys’ of such players with regard to what was a reasonable rating on these two attributes. As such I think that in the game these attributes should be visible to the manager for players who are a) have a high enough reputation; b) are of a certain age; c) have been heavily scouted.

Now I’m probably straying a little off topic, but in the bigger picture of motivation and morale, there is clearly more depth and potential within the game than many realize/acknowledge, but the implementation I believe needs a serious re-evaluation.

[Zebedee77]

I'm first off going to thank donshaggy (from another forum) for asking the question which has made this click for me.

I have a 21 year old former Premier League trainee at Bognor. He's had a brilliant first season and is now attracting interest from other clubs. However, his personal profile does not yet show that he is unsettled or in any way affected by the interest. Since the interest started however I've noticed that he sporadically attracts the pre-match AM comment "looks nervous" or "under pressure". It has been sporadic depending on whether or not the 'wnt' icon has been present next to his name. And I can make it appear or disappear by changing his value. Maybe others have noticed this and not commented, but donshaggy's question has just made me see the link.

Could this be evidence that events between matches do impact upon motivation - even ones which at first glance might seem to have no impact upon match issues? I think there are more conclusions to be drawn from this too, if it can be linked to other hidden attributes and other specific non-pitch stimuli. Which might make a fully fledged guide (at least one which works in general terms - specifics would obviously vary on a player by player basis depending on their 'personality' and blend of hidden attributes) possible.

Just some quick thoughts.

[SFraser]

That's some very interesting points, and like most of this stuff is rather obvious once you have actually spotted it. I had no idea that being "Wanted" had an effect on pre-match motivation but then it can do in real life and is actually a very big part of the real game. It is a bit of a shame that by the time we actually begin to understand the subtle brilliance of FM09 it will be time for FM10. The logic and depth of the motivation system itself is something that other complete games would be proud of.

I think that the complete guide you mention would be a lot of work and I am not sure if it is something I personally would like to take on, although I would love to know exactly how this works. The other side of the coin is that a complete guide of that kind on this issue would read like an instruction manual for perfect man management. I would suggest that should it be attempted and the individual(s) in question perfectly understand the system, that it should be produced in a manner as to provide the guide lines and general framework for what to look out for, what to be aware of and what you can do, without explaining everything entireally.

As neither of us are at that stage yet, I wanted to bring up the issue of hidden mental attributes. I do have a fair bit of experience using FMScoutGenie although I avoid overtly using it for gameplay, but none the less cannot avoid knowing what I am not supposed to as I do use it from time to time. There is very much a correlation between the hidden "Pressure" attribute and the teamtalks necessary to motivate a player in certain contexts. I could not state the exact contexts for each teamtalk for each player, but I can say that those players with low Pressure require the "kinder touch" in comparison to those with high Pressure. I am quite sure you will have come across these vast discrepancies in your particular save, and it is significantly down to Pressure although other attributes cannot be ruled out. There is also an interesting potential relationship between "Temperament" and the success of harsh and critical teamtalks. I have several high Pressure low Temperament midfielders that respond like clockwork to "Disappointing" and especially "Angry" at Half-Time when first half motivation is neither nervous nor complacent. I would suggest that Pressure is the key attribute in how a player perceives a particular match and approaches a particular match and that assuming a high "Pressure" attribute motivation then becomes an issue of "Professionalism" and "Temperament".

For example, a player with low "Pressure" will require a show of Faith and trust and positive motivation such as informing him he can win today etc. Players with high Pressure are likely to be indifferent or even motivated by a tough match although the potential motivational aspect is speculative and perhaps unwarrented on my part. These players will then require a teamtalk that pushes their "Professionalism" or "Temperament" buttons. "I Expect a Performance" is likely to be a good choice for high Professionalism or low Temperament players. Certainly I find low Temperament players the easiest to deal with in terms of motivation, but on occasion it has backfired with vicious fouls and straight red cards, especially with high Dirtiness and low Sportsmanship. Infact these kinds of players should be handled with care at half time as "Angry" will fire them up but invariably result in atleast one yellow card. Wayne Rooney is the prime example in this case, easy to motivate but hard to keep disciplined.

[ironiman]

A useful link from the tactics bible. Helps identify good players to buy and track youth tutoring progress.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=16356

From my experience, the "have faith" bullet works best on good personalities like "spirited" and "lighted hearted" and similar or better. It will be great if someone can compiled a list of motivation for different personality types.

Thanks for this great thread.

[Zebedee77]

Brilliant post SFraser.

Definitely agree that any work undertaken to make the system more transparent to others should be, and I think without an editor being used by the player, would have to be general in tone and nature. Also concur that changes in FM10 would have to be reviewed for it to be worthwhile, but in the meantime if anyone with information could add to the knowledge base then it would become a realistic proposition for anyone interested in doing it in the future.

re. Pressure. I mentioned it in a thread in GD, but I'm starting to come to the belief that Pressure as perceived by players is connected to the pre-match odds and modified by specific circumstances (eg playing rival, a final etc). Have you noticed anything similar?

(Minor point on the subject of using editors - the reason I don't use them is purely because I know that I would find it hard to play the game 'blind' after using one. Limits my ability to test, and is thoroughly frustrating at times but I know how I'm wired ).

---

edit: @Ironman - very interesting and would seem to confirm the hidden attribute basis for a working theory.

[SFraser]

re. Pressure. I mentioned it in a thread in GD, but I'm starting to come to the belief that Pressure as perceived by players is connected to the pre-match odds and modified by specific circumstances (eg playing rival, a final etc). Have you noticed anything similar?

It is certainly not related to the objective quality of your starting 11 and tactics Quite a lot of mechanics like this relate to a clubs "reputation" as a means of quickly establishing game perspective, whether that is the appeal of a club to a player or the stance taken by the opposition AI in a tactical sense. I think there are two parts to each match, first there is the difference in reputation that provokes the pre-match odds and determines the approach or perception of players and opponents to that match, then there is whether or not the match in question is consider an "Important Match" via the rival list and indeed competition. The latter I am unsure if it plays a role in determining the motivation of players, although it would make sense, but it definately brings the "Important Match" attribute into play which actually does have a profound impact on performances in these matches.

I could quite easilly imagine that the ratio of difficulty brought about by differences in club reputation (for arguements sake, very easy-easy-normal-hard-impossible) relates to the percentage filled of the players Pressure bar (again 20% filled means handles very easy games fine, 80% filled means handles all games fine). The exact mechanics I am unaware of so cannot state for certainty, but the overall idea is certainly logical.

(Minor point on the subject of using editors - the reason I don't use them is purely because I know that I would find it hard to play the game 'blind' after using one. Limits my ability to test, and is thoroughly frustrating at times but I know how I'm wired ).

Totally understandable, but you could always load up the Greek first division alone and take a look at that save through an editor. I would say that being aware of what is hidden has most definately opened my eyes to a lot of what is going on in this game. It is understandable that attributes like Consistency and Important Matches are hidden, but on the other hand they are so fundamentally decisive yet the game very rarely mentions them and I would imagine that quite a few people are completely ignorant of their existence. I would imagine that SI wish the variables to be hidden but did not want the userbase to be ignorant of their existence.

Not saying you should use an editor mind you, or rather don't edit but certainly have a peek under the surface. It is only game breaking if you start using this hidden data to purchase players etc. Knowing that stuff like Consistency, Important Matches and Injury Proneness exists is only confirming suspicions and proving this game to be incredibly clever. Not to mention the fact that it explains atleast 25% of General Discussion complaint threads I am beginning to feel like a drug healer here. I totally understand your viewpoint and it is quite commendable. It certainly means working out this beast of a game is quite an achievement.

[Zebedee77]

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that testing things out in my career game is making for very interesting results Will probably get addicted, but press conferences are increasingly annoying me right now because I think I'm somewhere close to getting them right and coming up with a very basic set of principles for them so it's definitely worth a punt over the next few weeks. As long as I don't become attached to some Greek lower league team...

Is Pressure as an attribute flagged by any specific coaching feedback? I've not seen any indication, or if I have I've misread it, but then I've barely touched a higher level team in 09, so haven't really had access to decent feedback from that source. I've not seen any specific feedback indicating a high or low value from coaches, whereas other hidden attributes do seem to be flagged (important matches high or low, low consistency etc.) Pressure as a cumulative thing does seem to make sense - too little triggering complacency perhaps? One particular striker in my Bognor game was regularly reported in pre-match reports as "thinking this level of football is far too easy" (or something akin to it) while scoring bucketloads. Challenging him however made things worse from a performance point of view, which may link back in with your ideas on a certain striker at Manchester United - maybe complacency isn't a bad thing to encourage amongst certain players?

Interesting about low temperament players - there is a certain player at Bognor who I can regularly get sent off. High aggression attribute and too many smarties before the match and he'll go out to break legs.

[SFraser]

Pressure as a cumulative thing does seem to make sense - too little triggering complacency perhaps?

Great point. I see it as the opposite, too great an ability to handle pressure leading to complacency. Think about it, can't handle Pressure = Nervous, totally unfazed = Complacent.

I did a quick check of the relevant attributes of my most regularly Complacent players and they do indeed have a high Pressure attribute. My most regularly Complacent player has Consistency 17, Pressure 18, and average or better for all the rest. It makes a lot of sense, highly consistent and untouched by pressure so he thinks the game is easy. It will require testing to prove, but like yourself I prefer Career games and playing the game even if I do use a decent scout from time to time.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that testing things out in my career game is making for very interesting results Will probably get addicted

Well that's the way the game is meant to played. Battle your way up from ignominity through trial and error. Like real life it probably leads to a lot of frustration, but my LLM save where I refuse to use scout programmes is also one of my most enjoyable, although I did start with an International reputation I will argue that the prettiness of the ME with relatively quality players provokes me to cheat a little, but it does perhaps blinker my perspective.

, but press conferences are increasingly annoying me right now because I think I'm somewhere close to getting them right and coming up with a very basic set of principles for them so it's definitely worth a punt over the next few weeks.

I have no substantial evidence for this, and it is probably entireally imaginary, but I find that actually behaving in a certain style rather than trying to micro-manage these details brings greater rewards in the long run. If you consider yourself to be the friendly yet immovably harsh task master, always demanding and taking no BS then at the very least you find out those players that will not accept your entireally reasonable demands and at the same time motivate those players that share the same mentality. You could try and micro-manage all of your players but the success rate of that is bound to be minimal, or you can find out who is and who is not suited to your club and get rid. In this case a bit of Roleplay can actually work.

Is Pressure as an attribute flagged by any specific coaching feedback?

As far as I am aware it is not. It is entireally fair to hide this attribute but then if people do not know it exists how do they know to try and look for it in the first place? If I do not know Pressure is a factor then it is going to be incredibly hard for me to spot it's impact.

One particular striker in my Bognor game was regularly reported in pre-match reports as "thinking this level of football is far too easy" (or something akin to it) while scoring bucketloads. Challenging him however made things worse from a performance point of view, which may link back in with your ideas on a certain striker at Manchester United - maybe complacency isn't a bad thing to encourage amongst certain players?

An interesting point for sure. I can see where you are coming from in saying that some players would benefit from not being revved up for a game, but I think you would have to be something of a polymath to employ that kind of motivation technique successfully. Or indeed try it once and see that it works It is definately a point for consideration and experimentation in future games, but I think experimentation rather than calculation is necessary due to the complexity involved.

Interesting about low temperament players - there is a certain player at Bognor who I can regularly get sent off. High aggression attribute and too many smarties before the match and he'll go out to break legs.

It is rather interesting and also quite logical, and it really works well through the ME. It also brings into question the choice of mentor, which is a topic I know you are interested in. A high Determination, highly consistent, great Big Match player might be a great mentor, but then like you say maybe he has a habit of beating people up. The thing is, how many people playing this game do you think are aware of these choices, let alone the very existence of these attributes?

[Zebedee77]

Great point. I see it as the opposite, too great an ability to handle pressure leading to complacency. Think about it, can't handle Pressure = Nervous, totally unfazed = Complacent.

I did a quick check of the relevant attributes of my most regularly Complacent players and they do indeed have a high Pressure attribute. My most regularly Complacent player has Consistency 17, Pressure 18, and average or better for all the rest. It makes a lot of sense, highly consistent and untouched by pressure so he thinks the game is easy. It will require testing to prove, but like yourself I prefer Career games and playing the game even if I do use a decent scout from time to time.

That was me badly phrasing something - I meant too little in the pressure accumulation stakes rather than the attribute Interesting that they have high consistency. Might shoot down my idea that it may be related to professionalism - eg highly professional player can be challenged out of complacency, whereas an 'unprofessional' player will react to such a challenge negatively. Of course the level of 'challenge' set will make a difference (presumably the strength of the stimuli will alter outcomes based upon the underlying hidden attribute which is dominating proceedings).

Well that's the way the game is meant to played. Battle your way up from ignominity through trial and error. Like real life it probably leads to a lot of frustration, but my LLM save where I refuse to use scout programmes is also one of my most enjoyable, although I did start with an International reputation I will argue that the prettiness of the ME with relatively quality players provokes me to cheat a little, but it does perhaps blinker my perspective.

Kind of agree but disagree. I'm an old wargamer - I like to know the rules which will frame my strategy. It's kind of annoying to follow a strategy which I eventually discover is forbidden by rules I knew nothing about when starting the game. I used to be an LLMer but as the game has become more complex (jump from 05 to 09 was quite radical), I've been forced to acknowledge that tinkering with something which I don't understand from a mechanical point of view is as equally productive as my old attempts to strip down my desktops without switching the power off...

I have no substantial evidence for this, and it is probably entireally imaginary, but I find that actually behaving in a certain style rather than trying to micro-manage these details brings greater rewards in the long run. If you consider yourself to be the friendly yet immovably harsh task master, always demanding and taking no BS then at the very least you find out those players that will not accept your entireally reasonable demands and at the same time motivate those players that share the same mentality. You could try and micro-manage all of your players but the success rate of that is bound to be minimal, or you can find out who is and who is not suited to your club and get rid. In this case a bit of Roleplay can actually work.

Agree totally. I have a style of management which works for me. However, I have to recruit players who will work under that style. So knowing broadly how to micro-manage potentially unsuitable players would enable me to play a much more 'Harry Redknapp' or Mourinho school of management type.

As far as I am aware it is not. It is entireally fair to hide this attribute but then if people do not know it exists how do they know to try and look for it in the first place? If I do not know Pressure is a factor then it is going to be incredibly hard for me to spot it's impact.

Even where the impact is measured was a mystery to me not so long ago... It would be very odd if it were not flagged somewhere though. Might be a case of going through a list of feedbacks to narrow it down. Something for another day/year/century

An interesting point for sure. I can see where you are coming from in saying that some players would benefit from not being revved up for a game, but I think you would have to be something of a polymath to employ that kind of motivation technique successfully. Or indeed try it once and see that it works It is definately a point for consideration and experimentation in future games, but I think experimentation rather than calculation is necessary due to the complexity involved.

I think personality type may be a useful indicator for some cases. Whereas experimentation may provide the only solution when the personality type is less descriptive (eg balanced). Of course, knowing just how much or how little stimuli to apply (ie measuring the tipping point) will be difficult without hands-on experimentation (at least in the absence of any way to measure Pressure as an attribute within game), but knowing the framework at least allows educated decision making.

It is rather interesting and also quite logical, and it really works well through the ME. It also brings into question the choice of mentor, which is a topic I know you are interested in. A high Determination, highly consistent, great Big Match player might be a great mentor, but then like you say maybe he has a habit of beating people up. The thing is, how many people playing this game do you think are aware of these choices, let alone the very existence of these attributes?

As an integrated system of depth and complexity, I think very few people are aware fully of what is going on. I am certainly not one of those people! I'd imagine most of them work for SI and I think there are a couple of 'gurus' lurking in positions of semi-authority who may know a great deal but may not be allowed to comment? There's little documentation and the little odds and ends I know have come from accumulated playing of the series since its first CM incarnation. There is definitely a need for experimentation and then documentation here.

[phnompenhandy]

I've just run a check with GenieScout, loading up players with high CA but pressure 1. Nowhere in any report is there any mention of the low pressure attribute. The Genie comments replicate the coach report comments, so it does indeed mean that coaches and scouts ignore this attribute in their reports.

[Ukchris]

I've been using Genie scout to track player development as I was interested in seeing the exact results of my training/development system etc. At the same time I've used it to look at my players and see if hidden attributes could explain various issues.

I have an AMC who has the visible attributes to be a top player but for every great game he has he'll have 3 where he's quiet and often my AssMan will report he's not coping with the pressure in matches. When I get that message I tend to set his team talk to "no pressure". I expected to see him have low consistency (explaining the on-off performances) and low pressure values, and sure enough his pressure is low at 6 with consistency not brilliant but not awful at 12. He also has a rating of 10 for important matches.

Another thing was a striker who had all the attributes to be a reasonable goal scorer but just couldn't score for me. He might get 1 goal, then go many games without another. I never had a report about him handling pressure badly so figured that wasn't the issue but did think that consistency might be low. I was wrong... he has 17 consistency but only 5 for important matches.

Now these are only two cases and it's anectodal but I wonder if consistency is more of a derivative, working off important matches. I always thought important matches would show how they perform in the FA Cup Final, or away against Man Utd, but maybe it hs an effect in every match as both my inconsistent players have a low rating here. Maybe a low rating translates into them not seeing most matches as important and thus performing poorly, then even with a high consistency rating they're simply consistently poor.

I'm not sure, but checking my top, consistent performers they all have high values in important matches and even if consistency is low they put in good performances week in, week out. In contrast some great looking players with high consistency but low important matches have been very disappointing with more poor games than good. That's leading me to believe important matches is the key hidden attribute for actual consistency, with the consistency rating something of a multiplier on that. Pressure to me seems to be as SFraser suggested above - low pressure players respond better to kinder, softer talks while high pressure players are more able to handle being told you expect a win or that they're playing badly and need to do a lot better.

[Benoit2]

'Consistency' is the attribute used to determine how well players perform. In big matches, the 'important matches' attribute is used instead.

How an 'important match' is defined, I do not know for a fact.

[Zebedee77]

'Consistency' is the attribute used to determine how well players perform. In big matches, the 'important matches' attribute is used instead.

How an 'important match' is defined, I do not know for a fact.

Perhaps I'm misreading you Benoit2, but I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I seem to recall a tip/hint which said that the consistency attribute is used to judge how long runs of good or bad form continue for. So a highly consistent player will maintain a good run of form for longer, which means that he'll require less micro-management once you have 'pressed his buttons' sufficiently to trigger such a good run of form.

I've always understood that important match attribute represented a modifier which positively impacted performance levels in designated 'important matches'. I wonder whether important matches are designated through board expectation levels for cup matches?

Perhaps our difference is more in perception of how the result is obtained via the mechanics rather than representing a difference in what results we see in the match?

[SFraser]

The precise description for Consistency which I have read, which may or may not be accurate, is that the Consistency attribute directly relates to how often a player will play to his CA with 20 Consistency meaning plays at CA 20/25 matches and 10 Consistency meaning plays 10/25 at CA. The average off-day will be 10 below CA with random factors determining the exact extent. Only mental and technical attributes are affected by the drop in CA.

This description seems entireally accurate from ingame observations with variations in performances arising from timing/execution misjudgements rather than diminished physical presence or ability.

The Important Match attribute is a bit of a teaser because I have not read anything more than a vague description of its impact, nor do I know of the game judgement of an Important Match. I have noticed that players with low Important Matches are incredibly prone to being dominated or making mistakes in obvious Important Matches rather than the attribute appearing like a Big Match Consistency attribute. It may function in this manner with me being unaware of certain "Important Matches" where my players in question have performed well, but from what I have noticed of performances in "Important Matches" leads me to actually query the selection of players with low Important Match attribute in every Important Match I am aware of.

Likewise those with high Important Match attribute are not just regularly impressive in Important Matches but seem to reserve their best performances for those game.

I consider it to be an absolute value that actually matters in every Important Match.

[Zebedee77]

Interesting. Apologies Benoit2, it would seem that you are indeed closer to the nub of how consistency functions. So consistency provides the baseline for performance from which other factors are then added or subtracted? Which is possibly why I've seen it from a results perspective in that inconsistent players need far more micro-management in order to achieve a baseline performance?

[SCIAG]

The precise description for Consistency which I have read, which may or may not be accurate, is that the Consistency attribute directly relates to how often a player will play to his CA with 20 Consistency meaning plays at CA 20/25 matches and 10 Consistency meaning plays 10/25 at CA. The average off-day will be 10 below CA with random factors determining the exact extent. Only mental and technical attributes are affected by the drop in CA.

This description seems entireally accurate from ingame observations with variations in performances arising from timing/execution misjudgements rather than diminished physical presence or ability.

The Important Match attribute is a bit of a teaser because I have not read anything more than a vague description of its impact, nor do I know of the game judgement of an Important Match. I have noticed that players with low Important Matches are incredibly prone to being dominated or making mistakes in obvious Important Matches rather than the attribute appearing like a Big Match Consistency attribute. It may function in this manner with me being unaware of certain "Important Matches" where my players in question have performed well, but from what I have noticed of performances in "Important Matches" leads me to actually query the selection of players with low Important Match attribute in every Important Match I am aware of.

Likewise those with high Important Match attribute are not just regularly impressive in Important Matches but seem to reserve their best performances for those game.

I consider it to be an absolute value that actually matters in every Important Match.

I agree with everything you say there. That definition of consistency is the one used by the researchers, and it seems to work for me too.

I created this thread a while back to discuss motivation versus tactics. SFraser, I know both are important, but what do you think would get better results: a great tactic with little additional motivation, or motivation used extremely well with an average tactic?

I think the tactic shades it, but I'm not sure, especially on 09, where massaging egos is more important than ever. Remember, it's "just above the minimum motivation", rather than "poor motivation".

[SFraser]

Interesting. Apologies Benoit2, it would seem that you are indeed closer to the nub of how consistency functions. So consistency provides the baseline for performance from which other factors are then added or subtracted? Which is possibly why I've seen it from a results perspective in that inconsistent players need far more micro-management in order to achieve a baseline performance?

If you take the function of Consistency itself, combine it to the random factor issue of "off-days" and then imagine that positive or negative motivation does indeed have a similar impact on a player, such as the modifier of mental statistics I proposed, then you do have a rather complex but none the less very interesting set of variables that functions much like you say.

Inconsistent players could by sheer chance have a run of games where their negative CA modifier is miniscule and thereby negated by quality man management techniques. Likewise Consistent players could have the same run of negligable lack of form effectively countered by man management techniques. However it would appear that due to the regularity at which you can use specific man management techniques, combined to the issues of Pressure etc. mentioned previously, that it is ultimately impossible to provoke Consistent form from the profoundly Inconsistent over a long period of time. The best you could do is watch form over a few seasons and get a rough idea for how consistent a player is, then watch specific form across a short period of time and get a rough idea of how consistent he is likely to be the in the future, and then match those observations to precisely targetted man management techiques for key phases of the season. I do not imagine that this sheer effort of willpower and micromanagement in detail would be worthwhile for commitment and risk for anything less than the misfiring genius.

There is one critical question to all of this, and that is if man management techniques and teamtalks have any bearing on consistency itself. I have noticed that the Consistency attribute can increase but it is not by much and I do not how. From a purely realistic perspective you would imagine that factors would come into play to determine the Consistency of a player, certainly Pressure and Professionalism, and that it could increase quite dramatically over time. However this might be a degree of complexity that is just to much to deal with and that conclusion is supported by the apparent randomness of the function of the consistency attribute.

I created this thread a while back to discuss motivation versus tactics. SFraser, I know both are important, but what do you think would get better results: a great tactic with little additional motivation, or motivation used extremely well with an average tactic?

I think the tactic shades it, but I'm not sure, especially on 09, where massaging egos is more important than ever. Remember, it's "just above the minimum motivation", rather than "poor motivation".

I think the game is approaching or has reached the stage where both have the ability to decide matches and that a proficiency in one area can make up for a lacking in the other but never achieve the same overall effect as skill with both. In certain contexts it is quite feasible to imagine that Motivation is actually far more important, and I have talked about Lower League Teams being kicked and hacked out of the game and effectively broken despite their relative superiority within 10-15 minutes of kick-off. Likewise a Fired Up! midfielder with Long Shots 16 is a match winner in games where the opponent has clogged the box and has spent 85 minutes defending for their lives. In a fair contest it is the team with the superior motivation to win that will win. It is a fair comment to state that it is the tactically naive that requires Motivation to achieve results, unless the competition is of equivelant tactical and player quality. Then motivation is decisive.

In all fairness to the sport itself it is hard to compare the importance of one over the other. They are the two fundamental pillars of management and the greatest managers and greatest success stories in football highlight these twin pillars. It is about time FM dealt with the issues of motivation and man management and despite appearances it is a quality starting point.

[Wayne\'o]

talking about morale and motivation etc, if i make any comments about others teams and managers, i have 2 players that oftern say "glad to see the manager diverting preasure away" and i normally have two players that say " dont think the manager should be praising or talking about other clubs etc"

it's obvious the later has an effect on that players morale and so on!, If this is the case what is the importance or use of having the option to praise or talk about other clubs/managers ect? all 4 players are key to my squad but by making any comment i risk upsetting the same two players every time..

can you give my any usful advise as to wether these kind of comments are more of a hindrence to my squad than a help and how could i go about making the later of the 2 player react in a manner which would make them happy?

[SFraser]

It is a tricky question because I do not usually use opposition comments, however the rough gist of that method of interaction is to try and say something that will upset the opponents squad more than it will upset yours. That is rather obvious I know but let me give you an example of how you might be able to get it to work.

Imagine you are taking a teamtalk with your own squad and you have one player that has a low Pressure attribute but ten others with high Pressure attributes. Ten players will respond well to a demanding teamtalk while the other guy will become nervous, so he needs a different teamtalk for that match. Likewise these ten high Pressure players might not respond to anything other than a demanding teamtalk whereas the low Pressure player will respond badly to all but one teamtalk.

The trick with opposition comments is similar but in this case you are looking to say something that gets the opponent nervous or complacent while attempting to minimise the effects on your team. You are looking for that comment that most of your team will ignore and that will maybe upset a couple of players you know how to deal with anyway, while at the same time disrupting as many players of the other team as possible, or upsetting a few key players. The closer the opposition players are to your own in terms of personality and mental attributes the more difficult it will be to say something that has a clear effect on the opponent and a minimal effect on your own team.

Another point to look out for is the opposition manager's motivation skills. My next match is against Birmingham managed by Trevor Francis who has motivation of 7 and an Ambitious squad of relatively poor morale. If I can demotivate his team before our match then it is going to be difficult for him to get them motivated at the start of the first half, and if I can also say something that motivates my team or something that I can use to boost my own teamtalk then it is quite possible I could be several goals up by half time.

[turn it in]

Interesting, the talk about Lower League teams being very dependent on morale etc and this having a big effect.

Playing as I am in the BSS with Hornchurch I am away against Merthyr. My opening teamtalk is a "We can win this" to all but a striker who has been having trouble blending in who gets a "No Pressure". I go with my standard defensive style away from home and go 1-0 down early on which does some to rattle some of my players but I keep faith and my "No Pressure" striker gets a goal before half time and is doing well. 1-1.

Half-time teamtalk: all but four players are "Playing Okay". My scorer and my right back who set up the goal are playing well while my left back is "looking complacent" and my left-midfielder is "looking nervous". I sympathise with the majority of the team as we have played okay, but could be doing better. I tell my complacent left-back that I'm disappointed and my centre-midfielder that I have faith. I also tell my other striker who is getting a 6.0 and my centre-back who is getting a 6.1 to "Prove a point".

Second half is very even but the motivation is interesting to look at. My left-back is now "looking motivated" after his talking to but my left-midfielder is still "playing nervously". Everyone else is playing okay except my second stiker who is still getting a 6.0 and is now "looking nervous." I substitute the two of them.

76 minutes in and it is still 1-1 and suddenly a few more of my players are "looking nervous". Four of them in fact. Obviously this is due to the match situation as we're away from home and given that I can't give them another team-talk I decide the best way to motivate them and make them feel better is to attack especially as some of the Merthyr players are "looking nervous". It works and 4 minutes from time the substitute striker nets the winner and my now becalmed squad see the game out with relative ease.

There are some easy and obvious things that you could conclude from that. My teamtalk for my left-back worked a treat and fired him up, while showing faith in my nervous left-midfielder didn't work at and he had to be subbed. Also my "Prove a point" worked for my centre-back who came back to get a 6.8 and have an average/good game but not for my second striker who had to be subbed (happily as it turned out).

However on my team-talk feedback my Assistant Manager tells me some interesting and slightly contradictory things. My pre-match talk only had a discernable (to my Assistant Manager anyways) impact on two players who "looked delighted", one of thos players though was my complacent left-back who had a bit of a rubbish half. Then at half-time my team-talk affected no-one majorly except my left-midfielder who was happy, however, as you will remember he continued to play nervously, gave the ball away too much and was eventually subbed in the second half.

So overall I would say in this match motivation played a key part in me getting the result. Without taking note of it I would've likely kept my left-midfielder on as his ratings were fine and I would probably have tried to close out for the point instead of taking the risk to get the goal to calm my players nerves. Also because of the lower mental stats lower down it's very easy to influence and affect players in game and get a result through sheer will rather than tactical nouse. It also shows that Assistant Feedback can be quite misleading or certainly it has been in this case. It's early days for this squad though so I'll keep an eye out but it was an interesting (for me anyways) display of how responding to player motivation could get you a result.

Soz for the length of the post I hope it is mildly intriguing anyway and has raised some points for discussion. If not... move along.

[phnompenhandy]

I found that an interesting post, turn it in, especially since I'm challenging for the EPL title with a strong squad - i.e. the other end of the footballing universe to you. I think I'd have said 'no pressure' to the nervous midfielder, but otherwise I'd have gone with your team-talks.

What interests me from your post is this - sure at that level your assman ought be be clueless and untrustworthy, but I do take your point that with players' technical skills being so poor their mental (and hidden personality) attributes are all the more crucial, thus motivation can be even more important than tactics. If you're right that's a major revelation. I hope others can do more systematic experiments on motivation at LL level; in the meantime please do continue with your save and report further observations.

[RT--]

(Going back to a slightly earlier post)

To me, it's slightly lazy programming to have a seperate attribute for 'consistency'.

Really, it should be a secondary factor arising from attributes like determination, work rate, professionalism, pressure, etc., combined with how well he's man-managed. These are the things that impact upon how often a player can perform at his highest level (as well as other obvious factors like the position he's played in, the instructions he's given, etc.). Think about how many seemingly inconsistent players have been suddenly transformed by a change of club and manager, in real life. This should be one of the challenges of FM - can you take an apparently inconsistent player and use your man-management skills to try and get the most out of him? If he's got a fixed consistency score that you can do little to change, then the answer is going to be no. If he's got low determination and can't handle pressure very well, then at least you can try and man-manage him carefully to get the most out of him, even if it's not going to work 100% of the time.

Likewise perhaps 'big match' performance could be derived from the ability to handle pressure, determination, ambition etc.

To me, it makes no sense to have this array of underlying personality variables and then also have apparently seperate and independent super-variables as well.

[Wayne\'o]

(Going back to a slightly earlier post)

To me, it's slightly lazy programming to have a seperate attribute for 'consistency'.

Really, it should be a secondary factor arising from attributes like determination, work rate, professionalism, pressure, etc., combined with how well he's man-managed. These are the things that impact upon how often a player can perform at his highest level (as well as other obvious factors like the position he's played in, the instructions he's given, etc.). Think about how many seemingly inconsistent players have been suddenly transformed by a change of club and manager, in real life. This should be one of the challenges of FM - can you take an apparently inconsistent player and use your man-management skills to try and get the most out of him? If he's got a fixed consistency score that you can do little to change, then the answer is going to be no. If he's got low determination and can't handle pressure very well, then at least you can try and man-manage him carefully to get the most out of him, even if it's not going to work 100% of the time.

Likewise perhaps 'big match' performance could be derived from the ability to handle pressure, determination, ambition etc.

To me, it makes no sense to have this array of underlying personality variables and then also have apparently seperate and independent super-variables as well.

i think what you say is correct, if a player has 18 for determination having 5 for consistancy is going to make that determination stats worthless 15 games out of 20 if he only reaches his best in 5 of them, having said that, if morale is kept high along with good squad harmony and a good team talk, is it not possible to get this player to perform better?

[B1G_D]

Totally agree with everything said there. The bottom line is, only getting to "know" your team and individual players, in relation to the teams current climate, can tell you what to say. Getting team-talk feedback from your assman is vital for this.

[RT--]

Totally agree with everything said there. The bottom line is, only getting to "know" your team and individual players, in relation to the teams current climate, can tell you what to say. Getting team-talk feedback from your assman is vital for this.

I agree in general, but I have to say that I rarely look at team-talk feedback any more, and I wonder how useful a feature it really is. For me, the best way of seeing and reading the effects of team-talks, match events, etc on motivation and morale is to keep looking at the in-game motivation screens, especially just after kick-off and just before and after the half-time team talk.

I've looked at the assistant feedback ocassionally and wondered if it really tallies up with what I've seen during the game.

[Ceching You Out]

I may have mentioned this somewhere in this thread previously, but very interesting and thought-provoking read SFraser (and all other contributors).

One point I think I can chime in on, I'm 99% sure that consistency can be modified by playing time. I believe I've seen it in either an in-game note, the pages long treatise on player development, or a post from an SI employee.

Logically, it would seem to make sense that the more games under a player's belt the more consistent he becomes. Anecdotally, the evidence I've seen seems to bear this out. The eldest player on my squad (only 26) has played 300+ league games in his career and is the only player in my team that my coaches remark is "very consistent"; whereas the high potential, little-to-no experience youngsters I scout in Premiership youth/reserve teams very frequently are labeled with some variation of inconsistency.

If someone with a scouting program were to sort the players in the database by consistency attribute versus age (age being a rough approximation of experience), I think it'd be clear that consistency can be "developed".

[Ceching You Out]

Confirming my own suspicions, I've now had my coaches' reports on a player change from telling me he's fairly inconsistent to no comment on his consistency (implying he's now average) over the course of two years with regular playing time. Although I suppose that doesn't rule out "maturation" as the cause rather than PT.

[SFraser]

I have wondered the same thing, if indeed regular playing time improves Consistency, but have never tested that idea.

Another interesting and untested half-observation I have made is that Influence seems to increase by 1 point everytime a young player puts in a particularly impressive performance for the first team against decent opposition. This is particularly noticeable in young strikers that score winners or play well against tough opponents.

Assuming (a big assumption) that the above two are reasonably accurate then a consistent run of games improves Consistency and an influential display improves Influence. That is exactly what I had suspected before and it is interesting that you should bring up the same idea, as that definately lends weight to the idea.

[Ando37]

into my 3rd season with valencia, last 2 seasons my team has been 3rd and then 2nd and is now 15 points clear in january. problem im having is my team talks dont seem to work no matter what i say, they dont have an effect, my team is so good it just seems to win, if we struggle in a game i dont feel like i can change anything with my team talk at half time. players are 'looking complacent' is too common.

1st season and half of 2nd i felt i used 'we can win this' too often, this year i seem to use 'expect a win' too often, but every option i choose seems to result in the same outcome. team chemistry is 83 and has been for ages.

any suggestions how i can freshen it up and be able to influence a bad performance with my team talk.

[Altazar]

Just an idea. Team talks together with opponent instructions and general strategy for me are the instruments to tactically fight a battle for every match. What I would do is form 4 basic strategies playing with Man Utd:

Cup game against a weaker side:

Players used: insterspersed key players and reserve / younger players

Overall strategy: high speed, because that puts the opponents under pressure, would normally play mixed width, closing down everybody to put pressure on them from the first minute and dispossess the ball

Opponent instructions: show on weaker foot all opponents, since they are mistake prone,

Team talk: I expect a win. I am really telling them that they must win this one

Half-time talks: if we are not leading, I am telling them I am disappointed, and if we are down, I am telling them that the club's reputation is at stake here. They simply must perform and win such games, no excuses. If we are leading, I have nothing to say

End game talks: If we win by over 4 goals, great work, if we win by 2-4 goals it is well done, if the result is anything else, I show disappointment at the performance (and if we lose, I am outright angry). It is better to get beaten there and teach them how to win the games that matter - but they must learn that we want to win EVERY match.

League game against weaker sides:

Players used: same as above

Overall strategy: same as above, but play wider game

Opponent instructions: same as above, but also hard tackle the midfield and wingers to make it difficult for them to play any creative game

Team talk: same as above

Half-time talks: same as above

End game talks: same as above

League game against strong sides and European games (not more than 6 of all EPL sides, e.g. Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Everton and Aston Villa):

Players used: use the main players, but may rest a key player if he is tired and put him in the reserves, so I can make use of him in the final 20 - 30 minutes if the need arises. In such games I would try to field players like Giggs in the last 30 mintues because he can rally the team, and if things are not going our way after the break I may have to call Rooney even if he was being rested

Overall strategy: Fast, wide game, tangible closing down, hard tackling - it is a life and death battle

Opponent instructions: show onto weaker foot everyone who is not either-footed, hard tackle everyone who has either Strength <= 13 or Bravery <= 12, and closing down everyone again. Yes, it is tiresome, but they will feel the pressure and we have a tough enough team to make it to the end. Besides, the closing down combined with the above hard tackling instruction makes the opponents rash and they get more yellow cards than my team.

Team talk: Wish luck. Let us face it, we are playing an equal team. I trust my players, but we also need luck.

Half-time talks: Encourage if we are leading by a goal or go at an even result, tell them I expect them to do better if we are a goal down, and that I expect nothing less than a win if we are more than a goal down (I overreact on purpose, so they get fired up to go an bleed out there for a victory), and I say nothing if we lead tangibly.

End game talks: Well done if we win by 1 or 2 goals, sensational if we win by more, disappointment if we lose, and sympathise if we draw.

European games against major sides (e.g. Real Madrid, Barcelona, Inter, Milan, Bayern):

Players used: The very best

Overall strategy: slightly more conservative, but again as fast as we can

Opponent instructions: same as above

Team talk: We can win this game (yes, they are the strongest teams in Europe, but we can beat anyone).

Half-time talks: same as above

End game talks: same as above

So far, the above blend is working okay for me. Third year winner of EPL, ECL, Carling Cup and first year we won the FA Cup! As manager of England now, I intend to follow the same method.

[Beardeye]

I have been experimenting with a few of the ideas in this thread. In particular I have questioned the form of two of my better (and higher determination) players publicly when they were consistently complacent and underperforming.

Both responded with man of the match performances in the match immediately following the statement- but almost immediately returned to "playing ok" or "complacent" following that.

From these two instances it seems that a positive reaction to a public statement lasts for only one match. Is this consistent with other people's experiences?

(ps-thinking on my feet i wonder if "why cant you perform like this every match would have been the best full time team talk- but i cant recall if it was available at the time).

[Pompeyboyz]

I tried a little test last night for a couple of matches where I based my teamtalks on morale as follows;

Superb or Very Good = Expect performance

Anything else = I have faith

For half times I use a similar model based on what is available and I found Motivation and morale increased resulting in better performances.

[graemeS]

I can't help but wonder whether this endless analysis makes the game more enoyable. I personally think devising a system of team talks that is almost impossible to fully appreciate is stupid and ruins my enjoyment of the game. For all the blabbering above, there are a few very SIMPLE rules governing team talks. It's not rocket science. Sadly, SI choose not to tell what they are so we have to guess, randomly work through thousands of games or simply ignore them completely. I have largely chosen to ignore them because life is too short. I do think it's sad that some of you write essays about 'the theory' of team talks on a computer game. I would rather just see some simple rules -- because in reality, that is how the game functions. For eg.

If determination = high, criticising good performance = better performance

if determination = low, criticising good performance = worse performance

simple rules like that would be quite helpful but no one can come up with any rules because no one understands how the game works and therefore it becomes meaningless and frustrating. God, I hate FM 2010. The idiots who designed it need sacking.

[Cravien]

Too short on examples and rationales. Too much vagueness.

[dreghorn2]

Team talks are the worst feature ever introduced to FM.

[PODSY12345]

I agree - can't stand them.

At the very least, there should be an option when setting up the game to disable them, disable pre and post-match interviews etc. That way you could play the game, avoid all that malarkey, and not have it impact on your relationship with players, board, media etc. The way it's set up at the moment, you really have to engage with it. It's too anal.

[dreghorn2]

Not to mention how greatly motivation effects the match engine.. blah, horrible features and like you i wish they would all go away.

[modest1]

so how do you counter act when the comp is fired up jheeeeze they really are fired up and injure all the players :-(

[SFraser]

so how do you counter act when the comp is fired up jheeeeze they really are fired up and injure all the players :-(

Lots of timewasting, lots of possession play, and tighten up your defence.

If they are injuring your players then try and turn that abundant aggression to your advantage. Try and play in and around the box with timewasting so high that you fall over everytime you get touched. This should encourage lots of strong tackles and plenty of dives in a really dangerous area of the pitch.

Strong, aggressive tackles are not necessarilly good tackles. They can leave a defender very vulnerable if he misses the tackle, and they can also cost lots and lots of free-kicks that helps keep the tide of play against the opponent. If the opponent does not back off when you use these tactics he can often find himself down to 10 men.

[PoolFan]

The whole media interaction/teamtalk features in FM are a complete and utter waste of time. I have ZERO interest in playing mystic meg and trying to work out what the hell is going on. SI need to get a grip and either release proper information on how this works or just abandon it all together.

[SFraser]

The whole media interaction/teamtalk features in FM are a complete and utter waste of time. I have ZERO interest in playing mystic meg and trying to work out what the hell is going on. SI need to get a grip and either release proper information on how this works or just abandon it all together.

SI have designed a game where you are supposed to judge what is going by player reactions. The options themselves are pretty clear for the most part. Demand/Support, Praise/Criticise on a 5 choice scale.

The whole media interaction/teamtalk feature is basically a way for you to regularly interact with your own players Morale and Motivation. A way of enabling good managers that have paid attention to their players to keep them happy and motivated, and a way of ensuring that bad managers that don't pay attention to their players keep reaping the consequences of their terrible man management skills.

I hope SI don't abandon the feature. I enjoy entering and leaving every match with Superb Morale. I'm having a lot of fun right now Tutoring my youngsters and introducing them to first team action with words of support and encouragement, and then having them thank me in public when they win their first cap/award/score their first international goal. It is greatly satisfying.

[eterna]

SI have designed a game where you are supposed to judge what is going by player reactions. The options themselves are pretty clear for the most part. Demand/Support, Praise/Criticise on a 5 choice scale.

The whole media interaction/teamtalk feature is basically a way for you to regularly interact with your own players Morale and Motivation. A way of enabling good managers that have paid attention to their players to keep them happy and motivated, and a way of ensuring that bad managers that don't pay attention to their players keep reaping the consequences of their terrible man management skills.

I hope SI don't abandon the feature. I enjoy entering and leaving every match with Superb Morale. I'm having a lot of fun right now Tutoring my youngsters and introducing them to first team action with words of support and encouragement, and then having them thank me in public when they win their first cap/award/score their first international goal. It is greatly satisfying.

I agree and I enjoy this aspect of the game as well, however it does feel somewhat formulaic and stale after a while (at least to me). I would love to see SI add more depth, more situations and more options to this mechanic rather than abandoning it.

[PoolFan]

SI have designed a game where you are supposed to judge what is going by player reactions. The options themselves are pretty clear for the most part. Demand/Support, Praise/Criticise on a 5 choice scale.

The whole media interaction/teamtalk feature is basically a way for you to regularly interact with your own players Morale and Motivation. A way of enabling good managers that have paid attention to their players to keep them happy and motivated, and a way of ensuring that bad managers that don't pay attention to their players keep reaping the consequences of their terrible man management skills.

I hope SI don't abandon the feature. I enjoy entering and leaving every match with Superb Morale. I'm having a lot of fun right now Tutoring my youngsters and introducing them to first team action with words of support and encouragement, and then having them thank me in public when they win their first cap/award/score their first international goal. It is greatly satisfying.

I'm sorry but in my opinion FM should be about football, tactics, building squads, pin pointing opposition weaknesses. What it should not be about is a endless series of 'press conferences' where the wrong option has a stupidly powerful effect on the actual result.

Look at Fergie at Man U, the guy sends Terry Phelan out to do post match interviews!! Am I to believe that Terry Phelan is some sort of man management genius who motivates all of Man U's superstars through his monotone interviews on match of the day?

Look at Chelsea, Ancelloti can barely string more than a few words together in English, yet am I to believe that his teamtalks and press interactions are what make Chelsea the side they are?

I understand the idea of the system I really do, but I think the implementation is a complete joke. I see no reason why SI don't come out and simply explain what their vision is and how everything is supposed to work together.

The shear lack of any feedback from SI completely baffles me, one quick glance at the forums will show that there are a million different 'ideas' of how this stuff is supposed to work but again until SI come out and say 'ok guys, this is the road we are going down, we see this working like this, and this aspect ties into this and they all overall have a effect on this'.

[SFraser]

I'm sorry but in my opinion FM should be about football, tactics, building squads, pin pointing opposition weaknesses. What it should not be about is a endless series of 'press conferences' where the wrong option has a stupidly powerful effect on the actual result.

Look at Fergie at Man U, the guy sends Terry Phelan out to do post match interviews!! Am I to believe that Terry Phelan is some sort of man management genius who motivates all of Man U's superstars through his monotone interviews on match of the day?

Look at Chelsea, Ancelloti can barely string more than a few words together in English, yet am I to believe that his teamtalks and press interactions are what make Chelsea the side they are?

I understand the idea of the system I really do, but I think the implementation is a complete joke. I see no reason why SI don't come out and simply explain what their vision is and how everything is supposed to work together.

The shear lack of any feedback from SI completely baffles me, one quick glance at the forums will show that there are a million different 'ideas' of how this stuff is supposed to work but again until SI come out and say 'ok guys, this is the road we are going down, we see this working like this, and this aspect ties into this and they all overall have a effect on this'.

Learn how your own players react. End of story. There is no magic formula to make up for failing to learn how your own players behave.

[Pompeyboyz]

Look at Fergie at Man U, the guy sends Terry Phelan out to do post match interviews!! Am I to believe that Terry Phelan is some sort of man management genius who motivates all of Man U's superstars through his monotone interviews on match of the day?

Fergie just doesn't talk to the BBC due to previous history. He talks to Sky TV all the time