Jump to content

ThinkZebras

Members+
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

10 "You're a bum, Rock"

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Unless you have tens or hundreds of other players to be scouted in the priority list (which would likely be the problem - scouts just sometimes focus on other players), just cancel the assignment and ask for the scout report again?
  2. How about sponsorships? Those are paid as a single payment at the end of the season and often tip the scales in the end (at least in European clubs, not sure how big those are in SA). Check the income from last season. Otherwise, you'll have to sell players (or get fired) if you don't pass.
  3. This. Somehow the AI gets the gist that the club can spend more on wages than other clubs in league, but doesn't have a clue that it should buy better players than there are in the rest of the league. In a few years the club just returns to its original standing and possibly goes bankrupt. On the other hand, if they spent those wages on better players (80k per week is around the level of star players in EuroCup sides in Bundesliga - Wolfsburg, Bayer 04.. and those are really good players), they woud have a chance of getting long(er)-term success. I could believe that an unexpected one-time winner of any minor league (esp. recently promoted team) would have their players bought by the more established sides (if you yourself don't stay to keep the players) - a one time success (like Mourinho with Porto or Ranieri with Leicester). However, I think that after establishing a club (in continental cups, at the top of Polish league...) for multiple seasons, instead of just selling the winning team, they would aspire to keep the club at the same level (at least). Especially when the club has the resources to pull it off (with an annual spending of 20-40M, several hundreds of M will last years before they would need to change the way of management). It should even attract new investors. If I was buying a club (a recent multiple-times winner of continental cups), I would want it to continue doing well, not to sell all the good players for profit and let the club slowly deteriorate.
  4. Then I take it even bringing a club to god-level for 20+ years doesn't help to get it started Haha, that is the complete opposite of the evolution they have in my save - after 7 years of lifting a Czech Second Division club Brno to win the Euro Cup, the next winter I decided to go save the Hammers from being relegated for the third time in five years It would undoubtedly be a tough ask, but with a 100M+ transfer budget, a decent reputation and squad, and certain champions league group stage for top 2 clubs in league (plus 1 group spot in EC), it could attract reputable (and capable) managers. Or at least they wouldn't have to sell half the squad in the next season.
  5. I know they are the feeder leagues, that's what I'm getting at. No matter how big (or rich) you make a club there, there is no way for you to make them matter after you leave (or make the other teams in league matter if you stay). Sure, you can win with your one club over and over, I even managed to get the Swedish league to be the 4th best league in Europe by consistently winning for 8 (I think) years, getting coefficient points, but even though the league itself got a huge boost in international rankings, none of the clubs ever took off there, even with all the competition money that was regular (because of the certainty of group stages). The sposorships got much bigger, the clubs got rich (almost all the clubs in the first league showed "rich" in the info), but they didn't spend money on talent, they just kept buying the same 120 CA/PA players. I imagine no Ronaldo or Salah would want to play in such a league, but I can definitely see players "just below top level" being interested in such a league, at least at the beginning of their career. For many players, Conforama is a stepping stone if they reach the top, or a very decent place to play if they don't. And I can imagine that if there was a club from Sweden that would win the CL eight times in a row, investors would notice. Also, I'm sure that if RB Salzburg won the CL multiple times, many young players (especially from other feeder leagues) would gladly come and play in the Austrian first division - be it for Salzburg or some other decent team.
  6. Basically any league I guess, at least in Europe (haven't started outside Europe yet). I've managed smaller sides in Denmark, Sweden, Romania, Czech Republic, and Hungary, always picking a mediocre team (a team not winning the league, sometimes even a second league team) that I brought up over a couple of seasons, mostly through good youth recruitment and talent scouting (therefore also setting it up for future). Then after 5 to 10 years I leave (usually I start getting offers from top leagues regularly in the second season of leading the first national league if I compete in continental cups) and the club starts to revert back to its original standing in Europe, selling most of the talent (often times for cheap). Even though I leave the bank full, the initially small clubs don't start to "think bigger" after several seasons of success and even though they have the money for it. They turn into a club that bids for the same quality players that they used to have before, only now paying them 10 times more (because the good players were paid better before they were sold, the new low-tier players asked for higher wages, too). Edit: I just feel it's a shame that you cannot kick-start a small club and then watch it succeed after you leave to work elsewhere. Or maybe it would work like this if I stayed with the same club for 20 years, brought it to god-level and then, maybe, it would stay competitive in continental football for a while? The bottom line of what I wanted to write: When AI clubs get money, they don't aspire to do better, they only aspire to what is considered okay with respect to other teams in their own league. That is not real - look at the french league. PSG are rich and because of that they are able to compete with top sides from other leagues. You don't see them buying players that would be decent for Marseilles (and just pay them more), you see them buying players that would be regulars at Real Madrid.
  7. Hi, I guess everyone here who has ever started in a small club (maybe in a lower league/outside England) knows this situation: Over several years, you rise up the tables, earn big money, build good squad and prospects, significantly improve the club facilities and staff, and establish an admirable scounting network. Then you decide to move on to another club, and the manager who takes over your old club just drives it back to where it was before within a few seasons. They sell good and/or promising players, team leaders etc, buy sub-par replacements close to end of their career (whom they pay more than you paid your peaking stars), don't renew contracts to excellent staff that took you years to aquire, and they neglect the youth recruitment that you worked so hard for (don't bring any promising youngsters). The AI doesn't care that you lifted a (e.g.) Second league Bulgarian team to play regularly in continental cups (or, even better, moved the national league up the coefficient tables so that the clubs there have a certain spot in group stages, i.e. money) and that you left hundreds of millions of pounds in the bank. They don't care that they could now afford to play at worst like mid-Bundesliga teams for the next decade - they have no use for that money, the club info will just say "rich" for the next decade or so while they revert to the extraordinary mediocrity. The increased budget just makes the AI do nonsensical deals - over the next two seasons after I left such a small club, the next managers sold all but one strikers I had there (all of them were very good and/or promising), bought some sub-par 24- to mediocre 32-year-olds, sold those the next transfer window, bought and loaned others, and sold those, too (currently, the last one of the "new batch" is a transfer-listed 33yo nobody wants and whom they are stuck with for the next season on 25k per week. For reference, when I left, the highest wage was 10k - yes, I was stingy, but they were still paid better than players of any other side in the same league). So far, the big established clubs do reasonably well no matter the manager, and, vice versa, smaller clubs who were brought to the top will perform badly again after you leave, no matter the manager they get - with a "predetermined" cycle of 1-2 seasons per manager in a club. Why can't a club that recently gained continental reputation, loads of money, and very solid staff and players keep on course with new managers? Of course the players want to leave when Liverpool/PSG come knocking, but only a few of them become unsettled and I can see that many managers/club owners wouldn't allow an important player to leave just because a good offer came when the club is incredibly rich. I know there aren't many examples of clubs suddenly reaching top level (Man City, PSG..?), and many would consider it unrealistic that, e.g., Panathinaikos would go on dominating European football for more than one odd season, but how realistic is that a 20-something manager who never even played Sunday league brings a no-name club to repeatedly win the Champions League? The closest I can think of would be Mourinho with FC Porto (who were nowhere near "no-name"), but he and his winning squad got immediately bought by Chelsea the next season, so he didn't have a chance to build a continuous success in Portugal (by "he didn't get a chance" I mean "he got a much better paying job elsewhere"). I imagine that if some manager ever managed to single-handedly raise any small club to the top (and keep it there for a while, despite the odds of being offered 10 or 100-times more money from elsewhere), the owners of the club would have much higher demands on the successors - someone reputable and capable (or the club would be immediately bought by someone rich and ambitious). And the successor would have all the resources to keep the club from falling back to mediocrity (at least for a while). I know these situations mentioned here are pure hypotheticals IRL, but they happen often in the game so I believe it would be worth addressing. Is there a plan to improve the AI club management in some of the next FM generations?
  8. I thought that's exactly what the coach workload says. If I increase the number of players, the coach workload goes up. Anyway, with 12 U18 and 10 U23 coaches (+ managers and HOYD) I'm well below 3 players per coach, which I'd assume is a rather individual approach. To get back to my initial question, is there a way to actually force the U18 manager to rotate the starting squad? Even if my youth team was just 20 players, I'd want all of them to play some matches, instead of having 11 tired players all year round (who would thus be susceptible to injuries in training, halting their progress) and 9 who have only seen a game from the bench. Because even when I played FM for the first time, I knew better than to start a match with tired players (I'd argue the vast majority of FMers did, too). And I'm certainly no football guru, let alone a football manager. Edit: According to the FA, they recommend a ratio 1 adult per 10 children in the age group 13-18 for coaching. A more individual approach is recommended for younger children (e.g. 1:6 ratio for ages 4-8). Even if I used only the U18 coaches, I'd be 4 coachces above the recommendations (which I hope the game includes, since it is (supposed to be) rather elaborate).
  9. Hi, I was forced to make a promise to a player to win silverware this season, what exactly counts as silverware in England? Is there a list somewhere? Carabao Cup, Community shield, Club World cup, European Supercup...? Or will the player become unhappy unless I win specifically the league or Champions/FA cup? I couldn't find an answer and don't want to find out the hard way. Thanks for answers.
  10. Although I have no insight into the inner workings of the ME, I imagine that multiple of those factors affect your players' performance and before each game you "roll a dice" for each of those aspects (that matter) how much of an affect it will have. However, there are some factors that usually matter more or less. Out of those you listed, I'd say Sharpness, Match load, and Fatigue (along with Condition) don't have an immediate effect on the performance, but rather how likely the player is to pick up an injury. Condition and fatigue will also definitely have an impact on performance late in the game or in extra time when tired players may not be able to catch up with opposition's impact sub (allowing the opposition to create a chance), rush forward to support a counter attack, or (I assume) in a penalty shootout - while there is a rather small chance a player will miss a penalty in training when fresh, after 120+ minutes of gameplay it should be much more likely. Morale/confidence are a huge factor in how your team performs. If you're on a great run, your players will become over-confident (as the ass-man pre-match warning says) and they will perform badly - selfishly, rashly, without any desire to work hard. That's where your press conferences and pre-match talks can have a huge impact. Asking the players asserively for a performance and reminding them not to be complacent after a match can, however, works only so far, and you need to balance it or they will be annoyed that they keep winning and you never praise them. For example, last season, I ended up 2nd in the EPL with 99 points - I had a great run, lost only 1 game, but occasionally it was impossible for me to motivate my players to win in Brighton or Watford (or wherever) because they were too confident. Somehow, the AI (that won the league ahead of me) was able to motivate their players to a better work ethic. I imagine it must be possible for you to be able to motivate your side better than I did (as the AI can do it), but you have to get every press conference/team build-up right. At that point, morale/motivation mattered more than ability. Another thing that you should watch for, there will be patches when your players perform badly for no obvious reason (or you will see indications they are about to) - three matches in a row with 6.3-6.5 rating or something like that is not unexpected. Usually they will improve eventually (instead of letting them play badly you better drop them for a while if you have a decent backup for their role), or will be about to. Look for a trend: e.g. your key player (after performing badly for a few games) has a rating of 6.4 till the 60th minute, but ends up with 6.7 without scoring/assisting? He is about to perform much better in the next game(s). However, if you then drop him, he might lose the momentum to get back in form. This works also the other way around. If your team does well and your winger is getting goals/assists, but only low 7s for ratings, he is on a downward trend (his passing/tackling/positioning/... is not good enough and the rating is high only due to lucky goals/assist, or even the others performing very well). He is about to do badly in the next (few) match(es). Unfortunately, I'm not aware that there is an obvious/unambiguous indicator for imminent bad form, you either have to watch all your players really carefully (weighing all their morale, performances, and trends in performances) or be surprised in the following match (where you sub such a player). For consistency, there was a thread where it was explained by one of the devs (can't find the thread now): consistency has a scale of 1-20, a player with consistency 1 will play scarcely to his full ability (utilizing his attributes) while player with consistency 20 will play to his full ability much more often. However, it doesn't mean that he will play always to his full ability. The explanation went that the actual scale is probably 1-25 (25 meaning plays always to his full ability), but a player can only have a 20 at best. The reduction in his (it think mostly technical, not mental) ability varies game from game - I assume you (again) roll a dice whether his attributes are impacted by 5 % or 20 % (I don't know whether these values are accurate or possible, it's just an example). Also, your and your opposition's tactic is fundamental to your success - at the end of the season, go to Schedules and view Opposition Formation, then you can sort it and see how your tactic did against the oppositions' tactics. That is, if you used (mostly) the same tactic over the whole season. Also, obviously, look at the teams you lost to - losing to the best teams in the world will likely not indicate that your tactic is bad, but losing/drawing to similar/weaker teams that use the same tactic might indicate that you need to approach these teams (their tactic) differently.
  11. Actually, I was rather careful with the coaches' workload, keeping it at average at worst (light in most categories) while having 4+ star rating (utilising all the managers and U23 coaches as well). Also, since I assumed that every player would play approximately 1 match in 7-10 days, I didn't schedule that many recovery sessions/rests and let them train normally in between games. However, this plan quickly went out the window when I found out the AI doesn't rotate... Thanks for the feedback. Does that mean that U18 players will develop at full speed even if they don't play a single game over the whole year (as seems to be the approach of my U18 manager for many players)?
  12. Hi, looking at the old posts, it has been several years since people pointed out issues about (the lack of) squad rotation of AI managers but it doesn't seem to have gotten any better. AI managers just start basically the same players for every match without any concerns about their condition. If my opposition does that, I don't really care, but when my youth managers do it, it angers me. My youth squad has some 60 prospects (I know it's a lot, my board's vision is to develop players for profit) and right now it's pre-season, so I've personally scheduled a lot of friendlies for the U18 (one every 2-3 days for 3 weeks, then a bit of rest and then again friendlies) so that they all get some match experience. However, after a week this ended up with 11 youngsters with condition below 80 (5 below 70 % and one of them below 60! - numbers on a day between matches), with substitutions done in matches at around minute 75 (those subbed on were all condition 90+). One of my 16-year-olds has the "needs a rest" sticker already and the season didn't even begin, while I have 20 youngsters at 100 % condition and 45-49% match fitness... What is worse, the tired one is not even a wonderkid or some freak regen, all of them are around the same level (about 5 of the 20 completely unused are less able), with lots of potential (according to my coaches'/scouts' opinions). My U18 manager has (according to Scout Genie) the attribute of "Squad rotation" at 19 and "Use of substitutions" at 16, so on the manager spectrum, he should opt to start matches with different team every time (especially with a packed schedule) and substitute players as much as possible (which he does, but only about 8 per friendly and late into the game). I would expect to see 3-5 subs at halftime in a friendly with 12 subs allowed, not to mention when the players are obviously exhausted... Is there a way to force the youth manager to actually rotate without manually managing the youth squad selection? Or make them available for friendlies only 45 minutes per match (as I can do with the senior squad when making them available for youth games or when they are called for international friendlies)? Are there other (hidden?) attributes that the youth manager would need to utilise the whole roster of players (even though some of them might be less proficient in his eyes - I can see all of them at 1,5* +/- half a star). I guess the 16-year-olds will develop (somewhat) even when they are not playing, but I imagine it would go much faster if they did get their fair share of matches.
  13. Hi, when rising through tables with a lower-league team, then in the first seasons of turning profit, it would be sensible to have an option to ask the board for improvements (facilities/stadium/budgets) in order to avoid/reduce taxes - I'm sure most of current club owners do look for ways to minimize their tax bill. Do you have unexpected 20M because PSG bought a few of your youngsters? Ask the board to invest (at least some of) the money in better facilities/stadium.
  14. So, to report further, after finishing the first season, those two objectives were removed from the 5-year plan. I was now able to ask for an expansion to a capacity of ~57k (haven't tried to ask for a new stadium though).
  15. Hi, has anyone been able to expand or build a new stadium for Chelsea in FM20? Their vision has a plan for both building a new stadium and expanding the current stadium set as "favoured" goals. The home games are sold out for every match, however, they won't allow either. When I ask for an expansion, they won't sanction it because they plan to build a new stadium. When I ask for a new stadium, they won't allow it because the current stadium has plenty of expansion capacity. Does it get better later on (i.e. will it make sense in the 2nd/3rd/4th.. season), has anyone managed to fulfil either of those stadium goals (if so, which one)? Thanks for replies.
×
×
  • Create New...