stockwellpete

I have a 22 year old wing-back who is rated two and a half yellow stars. The coaches think he could eventually reach 4 stars (three and a half is more likely, I feel). I am playing a Championship (UK) club. Two and a half stars is average for Sky Bet 1, the league below mine. What are my options to develop him? 1) Grin and bear it and play him in my first team and wait for the rating to go up. It might not, of course. 2) Loan him out to a club in Sky Bet League 1 and hope the rating goes up. 3) Loan him out to a club in the Championship and hope the rating goes up. Obviously I would need to ensure that the player is getting regular football while on loan, but would sending him to a League 1 club actually work? Or would it need to be a Championship club. Logically (i.e. as in real life), a stint at a League 1 club should help. And if his rating does not go up at all and his traits are not improving by the end of the loan period, then is it safe to conclude that the coaches have probably over-estimated this player's potential.

Yes please, that would be nice. Unfortunately, I don't always get a chance to review the incident where by player has got sent off because the replay starts after the incident has happened. Anybody else getting this?

I thought this was meant to be a simulation as much as a game. Stamina drops are badly wrong at the moment and seem to take either little, or no, account of players' individual coping strategies i.e. what is often called "game management" these days. Because nearly all my substitutions are forced on me because stamina levels have dropped to "poor", or worse, I get a much reduced chance for tactical changes in a game.

I am a bit confused by them. Firstly, if you go to your "Squad" page and click on the "General Info" tab, you will get an "Ability" and "Potential" rating for each player. I am playing as Sheffield Wednesday in the Championship and I have players in my first team squad with the following "Ability" ratings . . . 2 stars - described as "decent" for the first team (he is actually my U21 goalie as my two main keepers are injured) 2 and a half stars - "fairly good" 3 stars - "good" 3 and a half stars - "very good" 4 stars - "superb" Then, there seems to be another set of yellow star ratings in operation that appear in the Scout's reports . . . 2 stars - "leading Vanarama" 2 and a half stars - variously as "good Sky Bet 2", "potentially Sky Bet 1", "decent Sky Bet 1" 3 stars - variously as "potentially "decent Sky Bet Championship", "useful back-up for first team" 3 and a half stars - variously as "potentially Sky Bet Championship", "decent Sky Bet Championship" , "good Sky Bet Championship", "useful back-up for first team", "potentially Premiership" 4 stars - variously as "leading Sky Bet Championship", "potentially Premiership" These two sets of ratings do not seem to tally up very much. My hastily promoted under-21 GK is Vanarama standard and surely must be considered "poor" for my first team, not "decent". My two and a half star players are also not at Championship standard and cannot be considered "fairly good" - they are at least "below average" for the Championship. My 3 star players are squad/back-up players for the Championship and every squad needs at least half a dozen of them, but they are "average", not "good". My 3 and a half star players are my "regular starters" for the Championship and should probably be considered as "good". My 4 star players are my best players (I have 4) and they can be "superb" on occasions. I can appreciate that assessments of players by scouts is a subjective matter and 6 different scouts will have 3 or 4 different opinions about an individual player. So is this the reason why words such as "decent" and "good" seem to be used inconsistently? Or is there another reason. Why is my U21 keeper described as "decent for the first team", when it is obvious that I have had to promote him far too quickly because of injuries? Is anyone else a bit confused by these yellow stars?

So, in my example in the first post, where I had 8 shots on target to their 1, I would have thought that was pretty good myself, whoever I was playing or where. Yet it was deemed to be "not a good performance". That Japanese girl pop group called xG make more sense than these Opta people!

Actually, I don't expect it to do any of those things because I understand that it is an analytical tool to measure just what has happened during a match and nothing else. But it is very irritating and a rather limited tool nonetheless. I would like to be able to switch it off, as I don't find it helpful in the slightest, but I don't know if that is possible.

We were playing away to the league leaders in the Championship, who are Wolverhampton Wanderers. They spend £1.3 million a week on wages, we (Sheff Wed) spend £375K a week. We also have our first choice goalkeeper and centre-forward out injured. We win 2-1 and have 8 shots on target to their 1. Yet xG tells me we didn't put out a good performance!

And, “There aren't any differences in total distances covered between a congested period and a non-congested period,” says Dr Harper, Senior Lecturer in Sport Exercise and Nutrition Sciences. “It seems that players can maintain that physical performance in terms of distance covered no matter how many games they've played. “But total distance is just one gross measure of performance. Sprints and high intensity running – typically considered as over 15 km/h – are usually linked to notable actions in a game, with a German study showing that 45% of goals are preceded by a sprint. It seems that players perform fewer high intensity runs when they only have three days between games. There’s more walking and jogging.” Fixture congestion forcing players to pace themselves, says new football study - University of Huddersfield So this is suggesting to me that players should not be considered "exhausted" at the end of a match, whether they are playing just once a week, or three times a week, because "exhausted" suggests (IMO) someone approaching a state of collapse. What seems to happen instead is that players adopt coping strategies and reduce their high intensity efforts to situations where they feel they have some chance of success. So, for example, pressing strategies will become much less effective unless fresher players are brought on; recovery runs will not always be done as diligently, and so on. Typically, at the end of a match in this game, I will have 4 or 5 players whose stamina has reduced to either "poor" or "very poor", even though I have used all 5 substitutes (usually brought on between 60 and 75 minutes). If I still have an available substitute my assistant will tell me so-and-so has "given everything" (they probably haven't because I have never seen a player carried off the pitch exhausted). So I think this is wrong and it grossly exaggerates the effects of fixture congestion. To tip my argument on its head for a moment, if football (in real life) was a game where most players were "exhausted" (however defined) after 75/80 minutes, either football authorities would not be arranging fixtures so that clubs have to regularly play twice a week, or they would be reducing the duration of a football match itself to address health and safety concerns.

OK. That suggests that there is a sudden drop off rather than an incremental degradation from the start. CB's stamina levels after 65/70 minutes are often at "Fair" and go to "Poor" around 75/80 minutes, in my experience. This is unrealistic, of course, unless the player was "Tired" to start with, or is carrying an injury.

How does this work exactly, please? Does the performance of players incrementally drop as the stamina rating degrades during a match - or do performance levels stay at 100% until a certain stamina rating is achieved e.g. "fair" or "poor" - and only then do they start to diminish quite significantly? Thanks.

"Wide midfielders and strikers in particular tend to be rotated more frequently during periods of fixture congestion. But central defenders tend not to be subbed off. This may be due to the fact they typically cover less distance and less high-intensity actions than other positions, but that does not mean they are not susceptible to tiredness and injury arising from fixture congestion." Fixture congestion forcing players to pace themselves, says new football study - University of Huddersfield

21 divided by 7 = 3 24 divided by 6 = 4 (actually it was 25 days) - or 29 divided by 7 = 4.14 So your example is quite different to mine. In addition, Portsmouth were not asked to play a match between 7/10 and 14/10 or between 14/10 and 21/10, so there were two longer recovery periods which were not available to me. In addition, in the game the stamina drops are fairly ludicrous (particularly defenders mostly not being able to cope with 90 minutes), so the effect of fixture congestion is really quite exaggerated and unrealistic.

Please read the whole thread. I have already dealt with this objection. These 7 games in 21 days were all league matches in the Championship - in the autumn. Nothing to do with my club being successful towards the end of a season.

Sheffield Wednesday. They start in League 1. It has actually been very good. When you start the first season, you are among the promotion favourites, but your financial situation is really difficult. You have virtually no wriggle room at all - and you have a smallish nucleus in your squad of good players who are on ridiculously high wages. Even the veteran back-up keeper is very overpaid, even though he has just joined the club. On top of this, this group of players is very close-knit so you have to tread very carefully with them, otherwise you could lose the dressing room very quickly. Eventually, I managed to chip away at the edges of this group and move a couple of them on in the January transfer window, thus allowing me to start building my own team. When I had reduced this established group sufficiently, I was then able to take them on directly towards the end of the first season. Results were fairly good and we were eventually beaten in the play-off final at Wembley 1-0 by Charlton Athletic. I survived into the second season and then set about building my own side, after shipping out all of the old established group (some for good money, some on free transfers) during the close season. The second season saw us promoted as champions and a more sensible wage structure was established. For the third season, my task was just to avoid relegation from the Championship, but this was adjusted half-way through to a mid-table finish. We remained in, or around, the play-off places the whole season and were eventually beaten 4-3 on aggregate by Watford in the play-off semi-final after being 3-0 down in the first 25 minutes in the first leg away from home. I am now in my second season in the Championship and we are mid-table after a very bad start and more player unrest. This time the issue was me bringing in a couple of loan players that threatened the position of one of the team leaders. This time I put my foot down and the disruptive individual was loaned out immediately and a number of his supporters were put on the transfer list. They will be leaving asap. Things have settled down in the last month or so and we are winning again (I won the November manager of the month award) and we are now just 6 points off second place, even though we are only placed 12th currently. It is a very tight division. The transfer window is approaching and I have some funds, plus I hope to get a couple of the rebel players sold. One loanee is being re-called, so I will have three loanee places free as well. I am hopeful of reaching the play-offs again if I am able to have a good transfer window. Despite my criticisms of other aspects of the game (excessive stamina drops and unrealistic fixture congestion), this has been an excellent game in terms of trying to restore the fortunes of this famous old club (the reason I chose them in the first place). Highly recommended if you are thinking of starting a new challenge.

I think we might be writing at cross-purposes. I am saying that in the game my central defenders are getting tired after 60-70 minutes - when, in real life, they would get through 90 minutes with no problems. They could also comfortably play twice a week too, unless there was an underlying fitness issue, or maybe if they were well into their 30s (some veteran players retain their fitness very well though). The stamina drops lack nuance in the game and spoil the gameplay because you are constantly having to prioritise whether your players can still actually run ahead of any subtle tactical adjustments you might wish to make. When you get a period of extended fixture congestion (and then some injuries on top) it breaks the game, in my opinion, as you have to promote U21's who are just not ready to play at that level (Championship, England, in my case).

Yes. What I usually do is give each player in the team 2 days rest so they stand a chance of being fit for the next match in 3-4 days time. It is very tedious to do though each time. Any tactical adjustments go out the window (i.e. specific training sessions) when you have 7 games in 21 days and all you are doing is picking those who are not "tired", or at very high risk of getting an injury. It is very boring gameplay. As you say, the fixture congestion does get "stupid" because the stamina drops for some of the players is very unrealistic. Defenders can play 90 minutes without being at the point of collapse. They can mostly do extra time too, if required. Midfielders, (complete) wing backs and forwards are more likely to tire during 90 minutes than centre-backs.

No, they are not. You seem to be unable to tell the difference between 14, or 15 (as given for real life Championship clubs in 22/23), and 17 (which I am required to play in FM23). I have not been able to find a real-life example yet of a club being asked to play 7 games in 21 days in the Championship in the autumn. Perhaps there is one? The fact that there are fixture scheduling issues later on in the season for some clubs suggests to me that the game hasn't got this quite right. Btw the stamina drops are just bonkers and this just compounds the issue. And now, in my game, just before I started this sequence of 7 games in 21 days, my main striker has got injured and will be out for 2 months. So I have only one other fit out-and-out striker for that whole period. He typically lasts about 65-70 minutes before being knackered. This is a game-breaker for me and I shall probably resign this game now. I will need to know that this has been improved before I buy this game again.

For last season (22/23), for the months October, November and December, these three Championship clubs played the following number of matches . . . Millwall 7-3-4 = 14 Cardiff City 7-4-4 = 15 Birmingham City 7-4-4 = 15 My club in the game, Sheffield Wednesday, are being asked to play 5-6-6 = 17 with players who cannot last 90 minutes even when fully fit and rested.

Of course I am aware of international breaks, but there is no need to re-arrange all these matches in the same month. They could be spread out a bit more evenly across the season as a whole. Of course, in real life clubs don't have defenders that cannot get through a match (even though they are full fit and not "tired"), unlike in FM23 where the poor dears start getting knackered after about an hour. There is a real weakness in this game relating to excessive stamina drops for players combined with fixture congestion. With injuries on top I am going to have to promote half a dozen U21 players for this period. They are League 2/Vanarama National standard mostly. This is not realistic at all.

This is in October/November in the Championship (UK). Ridiculous. Please sort out for FM24.

Yes, me too. It seems to me that FM24 will have all the stuff that didn't quite make it into FM23, plus some new specifically FM24 stuff, plus the new FM24 database of players. Pretty good, I would have thought. I shall be buying it.

The "stay on feet" instruction might help to reduce your yellow card count, although it may also reduce your interception count. You can give individual players who are prone to yellow cards an "ease off tackles" instruction to reduce their likelihood of a caution. I also look at removing the "dives into tackles" character trait through extra coaching sessions for the player as I prefer my players to stay upright where possible. Some players will just get high numbers of yellow cards pretty much whatever you do (e.g. ball-winning midfielders). If they are crucial to your team then you have to grin and bear it, if they are not then transfer them out when you get the chance.

OK thanks. I will put the first post in the forum suggested by XaW above - with added context where appropriate. On your two points - wouldn't the text be gender-specific for the men's and women's sections of the future game? Or is it not going to be structured like that? "Their" in the particular context of the reporter's question implies a plurality of players, or can do, at any rate. Regarding my example 5, I don't have the game open at the moment but I think I am right in saying that the "Timewasting" tab when set on default allows for occasional time-wasting. The middle setting is "frequent". I have never used the other setting. So the assumption seems to be that all teams will waste time to a certain extent. Maybe that needs to be re-considered? Have 4 time-wasting settings - zero (default), occasional, frequently and whatever the other setting says (rolling about pretending to be dying, I expect). While we are on time-wasting, I feel it is a bit clumsily implemented at present. Set on "Frequently", my players will just stand there for 30 seconds instead of taking the free kick or whatever near the end of a match. Then the final whistle will go. Maybe there needs to be some jeopardy here? I haven't seen a yellow card given for this. Are they? If you already have 5 cautions in a match then time-wasting at the end of it could be very hazardous.

I started this thread on the Steam FM23 forum a few days ago before I knew about this forum. Perhaps it might do a bit better here. Basically, I am playing the game quite a lot at the moment as I am retired now and I have noticed a few examples where the text in the game might be improved. I'll give some examples in this post. First example . . . During a match when an offside decision is given the text says, "That looked very close to being onside." Well, quite. Offside decisions are often very close. Maybe the text would be better if it just said, "That was a tight call!" Second example . . . During a press conference I was asked, "So and so player was the stand-out performer. How did you gauge their award-winning display?" Better to use "his" than "their" in this sentence, I think. Third example . . . Players on loan are sometimes rated "Slightly Happy". What does that mean? I don't think I have ever been slightly happy myself. Wouldn't "OK" just do? Fourth example . . . In a match report opponents were described as "goal-friendly". This is a bit clumsy. How about "high-scoring" or "free-scoring"? Fifth example . . . My side had a corner kick late in a match with the score at 0-0. We were dominating and pressing for a goal. The in-match message said my player was wasting a bit of time with the corner even though I had not increased the time-wasting frequency at all. Odd. Sixth example . . . A journalist asks a manager about the match and he/she replies, "I would rather focus on the game itself than endlessly discuss it." I mean to say! It's a press conference called to discuss the match. Manager is obviously a raving imbecile. Seventh example . . . Another thing from the press conferences where proceedings seem to be taking a very mystical turn. The reporter asks, "Your team looks well on course to realise long-term objectives set out some time ago?" How does he/she know what my long-term objectives are? Beyond avoiding relegation in our first season playing at a higher level. And the mystical reply you can give is, "It is close enough that we can taste it. We've worked hard for it and we just have to see it through now." What is this mysterious "it" - and what might it taste like? Seeing as we are 10 games into the season and we are top of the table. What is he even going on about? lol Is reporting these sort of things helpful, or should I desist?

Lots of women right across the world do for starters (eg. Philippines, Nigeria, New Zealand etc). And some men. I watched the all of the KO stages of the last women's Euros and they were really exciting matches. I am looking forward to the women's World Cup too. Football is no longer just a man's game and that is a good thing..