Pre-Match Press Conferences and Team Talks Heavily Influencing The Match Engine…

[G.A.M.E]

ANSWER TO THIS ISSUE CAN BE FOUND HERE: #28

Firstly, if you're expecting a guide or something useful, I apologise; the best advice I can give at this point in relation to the title of this topic would be:-

Make no effort with team talks or press conferences because if you make the slightest mistake, no matter how much ability your team has, no matter the strength of your tactical knowledge, no matter how good your attributes in the game, you're going to watch 90 minutes of animated players repeatedly missing shots from 3 yards out, and if you're lucky, you'll not concede.

I know at this juncture there will be certain people who'll come in and say one of the following things:-

1. "Bugs are a myth, they do not exist in Football Manager."
   
2. "Your tactics are what's wrong, you just don't know how to manage the players correctly."
   
3. "You're probably just not every good at giving team talks."
   
4. "You should let your assistant manager do the team talks and press conferences anyway."
   
5. "Team talks should be different for each team."
   
6. "I love lamp."
   

To clarify my understanding of the game: I have a 79% win record with Arsenal and my team is exceptional; the morale is superb, we've won everything in sight (except for the FA Cup against Burnley, of all teams); I have a very good understanding of tactical theory and I've played this game enough times to know when I'm experiencing a flaw. I don't mean to come across as arrogant or obnoxious, I'm merely covering the initial questions I expect people may have.

I know, without a shadow of a doubt, because I've seen it repeatedly, that what happens in the pre-match press conferences and in the team talks has a sizeable affect on your team's performance; to the point where your tactical setup and your player's abilities become irrelevant. For this reason, I do 100% of my press conferences and I do all of my team talks. I firmly believe this is why I maintain such a good record, because even though my team is exceptional, I have beaten exceptional teams comfortably on numerous occasions.

Now, I'm not irrational; I know good teams can lose to poor teams; I appreciate that even the best attacking sides can lose after dominating an opponent (Champions League; Chelsea, Barca, Bayern, etc., etc.). However, this is a serious flaw with the match engine that positions the importance of a manager's pre-match interaction above the ability of the players and the tactics being employed. It's absolutely ridiculous how this works.

I spoke to Miles Jacobson on Twitter regarding the above. I told Miles that even on his preferred left foot, from 3 yards out, Lukas Podolski, with 10 minutes to go, hit the corner flag. Throughout the game my team created chances, and they were either saved or they went inexplicably wide. Now, if I wasn't repeatedly creating chances and missed a couple of sitters, okay; if this was the first time it happened, okay; however, this is happens on a consistent basis when playing the game and watching the 3D match.

Miles had this to say: "amazing isn't it how much better Chelsea played last season after Andre Villas Boas left. Same players. Different team talks."

Now, Miles is an easy target for everyone who wants to complain about the game not working; and I don't want to make him a scapegoat for things not panning out as they should, but to me, if that is the way SI Games is looking at the relationship of the match engine to the manager's interaction, then there's no surprise things are so flawed. It's alarming how misjudged that response is.

Firstly, I'm the same 'manager' Arsenal had when beating Barcelona 7-0 across two legs –– and the only reason that happened was because Barcelona were negatively influenced by me saying my team were underdogs, we didn't stand a chance, and then giving the team talk "You have nothing to lose" (or whatever it is). Which is, again, is a ridiculous flaw, even if it's working in my favour –– so to argue that different managers have a different impact on team talks is completely irrelevant to my situation.

Secondly, if that's the way SI Games is looking at things, shouldn't Newcastle have been relegated last season after their chairman's behaviour off the pitch? If Football Manager works on the principle that erratic behaviour pre-match can affect the outcome of a game, there must be a bug with reality given that Newcastle finished 5th.

I'm aware this is already too long, but I wanted to be concise in my point. This happens to me a lot of the time; the feeling I already know the outcome of the game before things have finished; the knowing that I'm not going to score when my players keep hitting the ball wide from directly in front of the goal.

It is my opinion that this bug has been around for a while, but since the introduction of the 3D pitch, it's far easier to see it because you're able to see the player's angle as they're shooting (rather than watching the commentary or 2D dots as we used to). Either way, because of the 3D pitch, this MUST be improved; it's highly irritating seeing your players: 1. Missing incredibly easy chances; 2. Be unimaginably greedy in front of goal (when in reality they'd pass to a forward who could easily beat the keeper rather than take a shot from a tight angle they had no chance of scoring from).

All I'd like my post to do is two things:-

1. To encourage anyone who's experienced the same thing to say something in a bid to create enough interest in the topic that someone looks at the system.
   
2. To encourage someone from SI Games, irrespective of the response to this topic, to quickly check over the coding to see if there is indeed an issue with it. I know I hate that niggling feeling that something isn't quite right, so hopefully whoever is in charge of that would feel the same about their work and would maybe take a look at it.
   

Honestly, it's really ruining the game for me, and I know I'm not the only one; people on Twitter have said the same thing since I tweeted about it earlier.

[Jad123]

I completely agree with this. Quite often (once every 5-10 games) I get the team talk wrong because it's hard to get everything bang on every time, of course. I'm not saying it should be easy but if your players like you and you do enough to ensure they're not overly complacent or overly nervous, they shouldn't be falling to pieces on the pitch, giving away three penalties in one match or missing chances that I could put away regardless of what my manager's just said to me. I agree that team talks and pre-match conferences should play a part but not in the way they do - perhaps in their work rate at training or not using the ball as well as they should in matches. But not completely destroying their ability to play, no no no.

[Cleon]

Make no effort with team talks or press conferences because if you make the slightest mistake, no matter how much ability your team has, no matter the strength of your tactical knowledge, no matter how good your attributes in the game, you're going to watch 90 minutes of animated players repeatedly missing shots from 3 yards out, and if you're lucky, you'll not concede.

This really isn't true at all. The press conferences and morale does not have this much of an impact on things, despite what people claim. It's simply not true and many people use it as an excuse. I'm not saying you are doing that but it's easy to blame morale and the media rather than trying to get to the bottom of the real issue.

For me FM is split into 3 sections. Tactics, Players and the Media.

If you are good at either one of those then you can afford to be weaker at the other 2. Which ever one you are weakest in then you need to make up for somewhere in the other 2.

To clarify my understanding of the game: I have a 79% win record with Arsenal and my team is exceptional; the morale is superb, we've won everything in sight (except for the FA Cup against Burnley, of all teams); I have a very good understanding of tactical theory and I've played this game enough times to know when I'm experiencing a flaw. I don't mean to come across as arrogant or obnoxious, I'm merely covering the initial questions I expect people may have.

If you did have a very good tactical understanding then and can spot a flaw you'd know that the first quote wasn't true.....

I know, without a shadow of a doubt, because I've seen it repeatedly, that what happens in the pre-match press conferences and in the team talks has a sizeable affect on your team's performance; to the point where your tactical setup and your player's abilities become irrelevant.

It has some relevance but nowhere near as you and other people make out. Seriously it just doesn't.

For this reason, I do 100% of my press conferences and I do all of my team talks. I firmly believe this is why I maintain such a good record, because even though my team is exceptional, I have beaten exceptional teams comfortably on numerous occasions.

I find the whole media too repetative and get sick of giving the same answers which are limited. For this reason I have no interest in the whole media side of the games no more and either neglect it totally or leave it to the assistant. Regadless of what his attributes are. I could leave it to the ******** assistant on the whole game and my tactic would still out weight any media.

Now, I'm not irrational; I know good teams can lose to poor teams; I appreciate that even the best attacking sides can lose after dominating an opponent (Champions League; Chelsea, Barca, Bayern, etc., etc.). However, this is a serious flaw with the match engine that positions the importance of a manager's pre-match interaction above the ability of the players and the tactics being employed. It's absolutely ridiculous how this works.

Where is the evidence to back up your claim? With all respect all I see is 1 screenshota team who had a fair few shots and a few of them from outside the area.

Now judging by your stats you posted further up the thread you don't score that many goals anyways and average just over 2 goals a game. Which isn't bad but its not great either.

I spoke to Miles Jacobson on Twitter regarding the above. I told Miles that even on his preferred left foot, from 3 yards out, Lukas Podolski, with 10 minutes to go, hit the corner flag. Throughout the game my team created chances, and they were either saved or they went inexplicably wide. Now, if I wasn't repeatedly creating chances and missed a couple of sitters, okay; if this was the first time it happened, okay; however, this is happens on a consistent basis when playing the game and watching the 3D match.

Judging by the screenshot half of those don't look like easy chances though.

Secondly, if that's the way SI Games is looking at things, shouldn't Newcastle have been relegated last season after their chairman's behaviour off the pitch? If Football Manager works on the principle that erratic behaviour pre-match can affect the outcome of a game, there must be a bug with reality given that Newcastle finished 5th.

How is that logical? He restructered the clubs finances and they were one of only a handful of teams who almost turned a profit.

I'm aware this is already too long, but I wanted to be concise in my point. This happens to me a lot of the time; the feeling I already know the outcome of the game before things have finished; the knowing that I'm not going to score when my players keep hitting the ball wide from directly in front of the goal.

You claimed further up the thread that you think of yourself as been decent with tactics. So when you see this happening often what do you try changing? In fact in the screenshot you posted, what did you try and do to increase the quality of the shots?

Any chance of seeing the full system you used with settings and all for the match you've used as the example?

What are the chances of seeing the PKM too? You're issue doesn't lie with the media side of things imho and I'll know you disagree with that. But I honestly don't think it is.

[Cleon]

I should add....that I do think some of the animations are wrong though and do need dramatic improvements for certain things.

[G.A.M.E]

This really isn't true at all. The press conferences and morale does not have this much of an impact on things, despite what people claim. It's simply not true and many people use it as an excuse. I'm not saying you are doing that but it's easy to blame morale and the media rather than trying to get to the bottom of the real issue.

For me FM is split into 3 sections. Tactics, Players and the Media.

If you are good at either one of those then you can afford to be weaker at the other 2. Which ever one you are weakest in then you need to make up for somewhere in the other 2.

If you did have a very good tactical understanding then and can spot a flaw you'd know that the first quote wasn't true.....

It has some relevance but nowhere near as you and other people make out. Seriously it just doesn't.

I find the whole media too repetative and get sick of giving the same answers which are limited. For this reason I have no interest in the whole media side of the games no more and either neglect it totally or leave it to the assistant. Regadless of what his attributes are. I could leave it to the ******** assistant on the whole game and my tactic would still out weight any media.

Where is the evidence to back up your claim? With all respect all I see is 1 screenshota team who had a fair few shots and a few of them from outside the area.

Now judging by your stats you posted further up the thread you don't score that many goals anyways and average just over 2 goals a game. Which isn't bad but its not great either.

Judging by the screenshot half of those don't look like easy chances though.

How is that logical? He restructered the clubs finances and they were one of only a handful of teams who almost turned a profit.

You claimed further up the thread that you think of yourself as been decent with tactics. So when you see this happening often what do you try changing? In fact in the screenshot you posted, what did you try and do to increase the quality of the shots?

Any chance of seeing the full system you used with settings and all for the match you've used as the example?

What are the chances of seeing the PKM too? You're issue doesn't lie with the media side of things imho and I'll know you disagree with that. But I honestly don't think it is.

Cleon, irrespective of how I do in any other save, with any other team, in this save, with this team, I win 79% of the time. I very rarely go a game without scoring, and I barely concede. I'll upload whatever you want to see, whatever you need to see to support my argument, but I've closed FM to work on some designs for the site and don't want to have to load FM just to take screenshots; in the mean time I'd ask you a couple of things:-

1. You say "The press conferences and morale does not have this much of an impact on things, despite what people claim. It's simply not true and many people use it as an excuse. I'm not saying you are doing that but it's easy to blame morale and the media rather than trying to get to the bottom of the real issue." –– where's the evidence to support your position?

2. I know, without a doubt, there's an issue with the game attributing too much influence on the outcome of the game (or performance of the players) with regard to team talks and pre-match press conferences (press conferences in particular, I'd say). I know this because I am involved in all aspects of the game pre-match. If you don't do the pre-match press conferences, and allow the assistant manager to do them, how do you know that your assistant manager isn't nullifying both the positive and negative effects of what would happen if you did the press conferences?

I find it extremely difficult to believe that pre-match interaction has such little effect on the game and that my tactics are wrong. I see how many chances I'm creating, I see how poorly those chances are converted; I know what to look for in a player I want to score goals, and my players have those abilities. Taking all of that into account, and accepting the fact that sometimes **** happens, it still leaves me feeling like there's a serious flaw in the game where my tactics have no baring on the outcome.

In that last match, I employed my usual 4-1-2-2-1 (4-3-3) and after 58 minutes moved the wide players into make a 4-1-2-3. We created more chances; we wasted more chances. Now, I substituted my players at the 58th minute, bringing off those who were not performing and, as I always do, giving a DIFFERENT team talk to the players I wanted to go on. Still… wasteful. I ask, what would you have done differently? If it's a tactical issue, with the players you'd have at your disposal, what would you have done that I failed to do? Surely the team talks are insignificant at this point, because as you say "For me FM is split into 3 sections. Tactics, Players and the Media. If you are good at either one of those then you can afford to be weaker at the other 2. Which ever one you are weakest in then you need to make up for somewhere in the other 2."

With all due respect, I appreciate you feel differently, I appreciate you play the game a lot and feel you know what you're talking about, but I know what I'm experiencing, and if your comment here "It has some relevance but nowhere near as you and other people make out. Seriously it just doesn't" is anything to go by, I'm not the only one experiencing this issue; so surely, there's enough to it to warrant a look at it?

Again, I'm not skirting around providing support to my opinion; I'll get you what you asked for and I'll post it later on. But I am interested to understand why you're of the opinion that this is a phantom issue

[Cleon]

1. You say "The press conferences and morale does not have this much of an impact on things, despite what people claim. It's simply not true and many people use it as an excuse. I'm not saying you are doing that but it's easy to blame morale and the media rather than trying to get to the bottom of the real issue." –– where's the evidence to support your position?

Been posted numerous times in General. Plus the fact you can have the worse assistant ever and leave him to all the media and still not face the issues you mention. If this was the case then leaving it to an assistant who is crapper than crap would mean you never won no? According to what you were getting at in the opening post, that's certainly what you're suggesting.

2. I know, without a doubt, there's an issue with the game attributing too much influence on the outcome of the game (or performance of the players) with regard to team talks and pre-match press conferences (press conferences in particular, I'd say). I know this because I am involved in all aspects of the game pre-match. If you don't do the pre-match press conferences, and allow the assistant manager to do them, how do you know that your assistant manager isn't nullifying both the positive and negative effects of what would happen if you did the press conferences?

You're saying that it has a massive impact on how you play. Well if that was the case then, we all know assistants aren't inteligent in the slightest, so surely when he gets the wrong team talk you'd get murdered? The fact is, he can give a bad team talk and you can still play like you normally would and get the result.

In fact you can do no team talks or anything and still achieve the same level of consistency with results.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that pre-match interaction has such little effect on the game and that my tactics are wrong. I see how many chances I'm creating, I see how poorly those chances are converted; I know what to look for in a player I want to score goals, and my players have those abilities. Taking all of that into account, and accepting the fact that sometimes **** happens, it still leaves me feeling like there's a serious flaw in the game where my tactics have no baring on the outcome.

Not to try and belittle you or anything but you know claim you know what to look for in terms of chances you create and how to finish them and said your players have all those abilities.

Well unless you have some update that isn't the SI one with altered player attributes then for starters Wilshire isn't good at finishing, long shots and he had 4 shots 1 on target. 3 of those shots were long ranged. Not sure if that's freekicks or not, but none the less he doesn't have the required attributes as his freekick taking is only 11 too.

So if he was in my team and taking that many long shots then its an issue as he doesn't have the required attributes. Especially for the level you are playing it. This would have been a big problem for me and I can't understand why it wasn't for you?

Robben had 2 and got 1 on target so he did alright. But you have to remember he has very, very low decisions, teamwork, workrate and bravery. Now if he comes under pressure he's less likely to pull out of the shot or rush it due to his decision making and low bravery. The only upside is his composure will stop the decision been too rushed. But none the less in other games where the type of things you talk about have happened and Robben as had a fair amount of shots then again this could be a valid reason.

Doumbia is good and got half of his shots on target. All his shots look from difficult angles just judging by the analysis screenshot though.

In that last match, I employed my usual 4-1-2-2-1 (4-3-3) and after 58 minutes moved the wide players into make a 4-1-2-3. We created more chances; we wasted more chances. Now, I substituted my players at the 58th minute, bringing off those who were not performing and, as I always do, giving a DIFFERENT team talk to the players I wanted to go on. Still… wasteful. I ask, what would you have done differently?

Hard to say without seeing the match. I'm a very reactive manager so what I change depends on what I see happening.

If it's a tactical issue, with the players you'd have at your disposal, what would you have done that I failed to do? Surely the team talks are insignificant at this point, because as you say "For me FM is split into 3 sections. Tactics, Players and the Media. If you are good at either one of those then you can afford to be weaker at the other 2. Which ever one you are weakest in then you need to make up for somewhere in the other 2."

Again it depends on what I said above. If 1 player isn't working and you sub him and the other player does the same then its more of a tactical issue. You should look at why the chances are been wasted etc. And work from that. That's what I would have done.

I've done plenty of threads that you can read to see how I go about games.

With all due respect, I appreciate you feel differently, I appreciate you play the game a lot and feel you know what you're talking about, but I know what I'm experiencing, and if your comment here "It has some relevance but nowhere near as you and other people make out. Seriously it just doesn't" is anything to go by, I'm not the only one experiencing this issue; so surely, there's enough to it to warrant a look at it?

People had all these issues before teamtalks and the media were even in the game. The fact is, now they have something to blame and pin things on. That's why a lot of people believe they are seeing this and agree with you. But in reality a good 90% of them were expereincing the same before.

Again, I'm not skirting around providing support to my opinion; I'll get you what you asked for and I'll post it later on. But I am interested to understand why you're of the opinion that this is a phantom issue

Because I understand how it all works and how its intergrated into the game. Been involved with the beta's for the past 13+ years you gain an understaning of what is a bug/flaw and what is caused by human error, you just know.

It's like you with coding and designing, you've done that much of it over the years you can spot what is wrong instant or have a really good idea of what is a software bug and what is a human error.

Like I said, if you upload the PKM I'll have a look and try and explain exactly why things happened.

Some will think I'm been highly critical and defensive. I'm not and I believe I can give you a valid detailed response as to why this happened in your posted example after seeing it.

Hopefully you'll take what I'm saying the right way and take it as a discussion and not a personal attack

[G.A.M.E]

Been posted numerous times in General. Plus the fact you can have the worse assistant ever and leave him to all the media and still not face the issues you mention. If this was the case then leaving it to an assistant who is crapper than crap would mean you never won no? According to what you were getting at in the opening post, that's certainly what you're suggesting.

You're saying that it has a massive impact on how you play. Well if that was the case then, we all know assistants aren't inteligent in the slightest, so surely when he gets the wrong team talk you'd get murdered? The fact is, he can give a bad team talk and you can still play like you normally would and get the result.

In fact you can do no team talks or anything and still achieve the same level of consistency with results.

Not to try and belittle you or anything but you know claim you know what to look for in terms of chances you create and how to finish them and said your players have all those abilities.

Well unless you have some update that isn't the SI one with altered player attributes then for starters Wilshire isn't good at finishing, long shots and he had 4 shots 1 on target. 3 of those shots were long ranged. Not sure if that's freekicks or not, but none the less he doesn't have thr required attributes.

Robben had 2 and got 1 on target so he did alright. But you have to remember he has very, very low decisions, teamwork, workrate and bravery. Now if he comes under pressure he's less likely to pull out of the shot or rush it due to his decision making and low bravery. The only upside is his composure will stop the decision been too rushed. But none the less in other games where the type of things you talk about have happened and Robben as had a fair amount of shots then again this could be a valid reason.

Doumbia is good and got half of his shots on target. All his shots look from difficult angles just judging by the analysis screenshot though.

Hard to say without seeing the match. I'm a very reactive manager so what I change depends on what I see happening.

Again it depends on what I said above. If 1 player isn't working and you sub him and the other player does the same then its more of a tactical issue. You should look at why the chances are been wasted etc. And work from that. That's what I would have done.

I've done plenty of threads that you can read to see how I go about games.

People had all these issues before teamtalks and the media were even in the game. The fact is, now they have something to blame and pin things on. That's why a lot of people believe they are seeing this and agree with you. But in reality a good 90% of them were expereincing the same before.

Because I understand how it all works and how its intergrated into the game. Been involved with the beta's for the past 13+ years you gain an understaning of what is a bug/flaw and what is caused by human error, you just know.

It's like you with coding and designing, you've done that much of it over the years you can spot what is wrong instant or have a really good idea of what is a software bug and what is a human error.

Like I said, if you upload the PKM I'll have a look and try and explain exactly why things happened.

I won't reply to all of this right now because I'd have nothing to support what I was saying; I'll get the screenshots/pkm sorted before I challenge specifics.

However, just as a general concept; have you ever considered that it's completely irrelevant what the assistant manager's abilities are if you're palming-off all the pre-match responsibilities to him? Is it not possible that you're effectively nullifying the outcome of what happens with the media and the team-talks if you choose not to participate in them? Essentially, instead of the possibility of getting a good reaction or a bad reaction by doing these areas of the game yourself, you get no reaction because you're not doing them at all. Maybe because you do that in your game, you get that outcome. Would it not be interesting for you, to confirm your own opinion, to do these areas and see if you can replicate what people are complaining about?

I will say, with regard to the tactical setup, I acknowledge both Robben and Wilshere are going to operate with less accuracy. Robben is very mercurial, he can be brilliant but he's not consistent in front of goal (as you say, he's also selfish, so I have to accept he'll waste some chances I create); Wilshere isn't a long distance shooter, and of course, will not get many shots on target as a result, and that too can be why chances I had were wasted; as you said, my tactical setup might be the underlying issue; I'm creating chances but they're not being taken because I have two players who are not suited to their roles.

But, you might find it interesting to know that my shouts were set to the following: Work ball into box; push higher up; hassle opponents; pass into space; retain possession. Interesting to me that, even though I had asked players not to take long shots, many long shots were taken irrespective of my tactical setup.

Also, I brought off Wilshere and Walcott (both of whom were disappointing) and went with a more aggressive setup with two strikers and a more cultured central midfielder in Vidal around the 58 minute mark. Would you not expect making those early substitutions not help shift the course of the match, if one of those players was wasteful from distance and was replaced with a striker to support Doumbia (who I assumed was missing chances and shooting from stupid angles because he hadn't enough support in the box)? I think so.

My tactical theory is sound on this, I feel. I may have made mistakes, I don't know, but I do know, when I saw things were failing that I made radical changes to my system and it had no affect at all. I will explain absolutely everything step-by-step in a subsequent post, with plenty of images to support what I'm saying. I do think, however, more than anything else, that pre-match press conferences stack the outcome of the match. I genuinely believe that. I'm not saying you lose before you play, but if you send your players into a match with the wrong mentality, the results on the pitch are stacked against you. If you unsettle the opposition via the press, you stack the match in your favour. It takes something special to turn things around at that point. I've played many games, I've made many mistakes, and I know I have an issue when it comes to approaching games with lesser teams I should be hammering (you'll see that from my screenshots when I post them). I believe it's a flaw in the game, and I don't think I'll be the only one.

I don't play FM Handheld because there seems like there's absolutely no skill involved; if there's no skill involved in picking a team, setting them up to play a certain way, doing all the talks and press ****, etc. then what's the point in the game? Ultimately, whether or not I'm right, the fact that I (and it appears) many other people feel the same way, is something SI Games should be seriously concerned about.

[Cleon]

However, just as a general concept; have you ever considered that it's completely irrelevant what the assistant manager's abilities are if you're palming-off all the pre-match responsibilities to him? Is it not possible that you're effectively nullifying the outcome of what happens with the media and the team-talks if you choose not to participate in them? Essentially, instead of the possibility of getting a good reaction or a bad reaction by doing these areas of the game yourself, you get no reaction because you're not doing them at all. Maybe because you do that in your game, you get that outcome. Would it not be interesting for you, to confirm your own opinion, to do these areas and see if you can replicate what people are complaining about?

You have to have someone do conferences etc. So going by your theory when the assistant gets it wrong I'd be flawed in my tactical approach. I can take them myself and choose all **** answers and give the wrong answers myself and still get the results.

The fact is strong tactics prevail no matter what media options you choose. I can gladly start a new game when I get the time and choose all the wrong answers then show me decimate a team if it makes you happy? Quite easy to replicate.

Going by your theory that shouldn't be possible and I'd be punished tactically and see stupid mistakes costing me results.

I will say, with regard to the tactical setup, I acknowledge both Robben and Wilshere are going to operate with less accuracy. Robben is very mercurial, he can be brilliant but he's not consistent in front of goal (as you say, he's also selfish, so I have to accept he'll waste some chances I create); Wilshere isn't a long distance shooter, and of course, will not get many shots on target as a result, and that too can be why chances I had were wasted; as you said, my tactical setup might be the underlying issue; I'm creating chances but they're not being taken because I have two players who are not suited to their roles.

the tempo you use and the mentality will also play a role in how the shots are taken. Robben is also selfish IRL so that's not an issue really

But, you might find it interesting to know that my shouts were set to the following: Work ball into box; push higher up; hassle opponents; pass into space; retain possession. Interesting to me that, even though I had asked players not to take long shots, many long shots were taken irrespective of my tactical setup.

Ahh now see this is why I deffo think its a tactical problem now. As you haven't took into account the oppositions set up.

The shots could be taken because your players are marked out of the game. It could be the opposition was too deep and didn't allow them from good chances. It could be a case of rushed shots from your players. Creative freedom too high, no better passing options etc

As you are Arsenal and doing well, the majority of teams will set up to defend against you meaning they are hard to break down. If this was the case in this match then pushing higher up and closing down more heavy and passing into space was the wrong thing to do imo. Where was the space going to come from when you've just took away the space by closing down heavily and pushing up? You've actually reduced it.

Work Ball Into Box – This tells players to use long shots rarely. This is useful if you think your players are shooting too often. Or if you find you want to keep possession and be more probing.

Push Higher Up - Self explanatory this one. You instruct the defence to move high up the pitch and increases closing down. Ideal for using if you are facing slow strikers (you need intelligent defenders though), a team who are very defensive or if you want to reduce the space that the opposition is playing in.

Hassle Opponents – Increases the tempo, tells the team to tight man mark and also increases the closing down for your side. Use this if you want to reduce space and time that you allow the opposition to have. Works good with a very attacking strategy and against teams who are a lot weaker than yours.

Pass Into Space - This is one of my favourite shouts to use especially if I am struggling to break down the opposition. It increases through balls so the players pass the ball in front of the receiver so he can run onto the ball. It’s great for creating space and forcing the opposition’s players to try and make a tackle.

Retain Possession – Shortens passing length and slows the tempo down for your players. I use this shout a lot, it helps pass the ball around and not give possession away easily. Some people enjoy dominating possession as they believe if the opposition don’t have the ball they can’t score. Which is true but it’s also a good tool to use when you want to close a game out and hold onto the current result. Rather than go defensive and invite un-needed pressure I believe this to be a lot less risky and just as effective;

Can you see whats wrong with some of the shouts you used? They contradict each other. You've told them to retain possession by slowing the tempo and passing yet on the same hand asked them to hassle opponents increasing tempo an closing down heavily. You've also instructed them to keep possession yet encourage players to play more through balls.

Lots of contradictory settings imo.

Also, I brought off Wilshere and Walcott (both of whom were disappointing) and went with a more aggressive setup with two strikers and a more cultured central midfielder in Vidal around the 58 minute mark. Would you not expect making those early substitutions not help shift the course of the match, if one of those players was wasteful from distance and was replaced with a striker to support Doumbia (who I assumed was missing chances and shooting from stupid angles because he hadn't enough support in the box)? I think so.

I can understand why you'd think that if it was black and white. But you've not even considered that it might be the oppositions formation that is forcing the issues and it wasn't actually a player one? If it was a formation issue of the AI causing you issues with breaking them down, then changing players wouldn't help in all honesty.

My tactical theory is sound on this, I feel. I may have made mistakes

Sorry but your tactical theory wasn't sound. If you think it is, then you've found your underlying problem. The way you think the games works compared to how it really does work. Your combination of shouts supports this. I could be very wrong but going by what you've posted I don't agree with that your tactic and theory is sound. Its flawed and got gaping big issues.

I don't play FM Handheld because there seems like there's absolutely no skill involved; if there's no skill involved in picking a team, setting them up to play a certain way, doing all the talks and press ****, etc. then what's the point in the game? Ultimately, whether or not I'm right, the fact that I (and it appears) many other people feel the same way, is something SI Games should be seriously concerned about.

The people who claim this though don't post evidence to support it and when they do 99% of the time its can be linked back to the user and his tactical choices.

People don't like taking the blame for things or been critised in their approach to game.

There are many flaws with the game especially the 2 MC's and 3 striker ones. But what you are experiencing is down to you and the settings/shouts/systems you use.

You will probably disagree and I'll respect that. But going by what you've posted I've seen 2 examples now of you claiming you know what to look for and how things work yet clearly not understanding from what you've written.

Hopefully the PKM will clear a lot more of the issues up. If you do have a genuine issue though and can prove it, post it in the bugs forum or I can pass it on for you.

For the amount of people who supposedly suffer with this syndrome its very rare for anyone to actually back it up with proof. They create a post and talk about it without giving proof. Only a very small % have actually ever uploaded stuff and most as been explained. The stuff what can't obviously SI take a look.

But do you not find it strange that for someting that is claimed to be a big flaw and a game breaker, there is a lack of evidence to support the claim and no-one bothers to provide proof? I certainly do...

[TacticalGenius]

I'd not been playing FM2012 much until recently as I had unfinished business with FM2011. But, 3 seasons into my Athletic Club save, I have a 72% win percentage, do most of the media/press conferences and all of the team-talks. I do get team-talks wrong, a lot of the time I fail to get a reaction either way. I don't think me doing team-talks has a profound effect on the outcome of the whole match, sure some players have had bad games after something I've said, but that is easily solved by subbing them off, and as in real life, some players just have bad games. I don't think anyone is bad enough at motivation that they've had a whole team react negatively, which is the only way I can see that a team would flop a match purely because of the team-talk. As a matter of fact, I had a save before, when FM12 was released where I left team-talks and pressers to the assistant, and the win percentage was roughly the same, with a team of roughly equal ability. Just my $0.02 worth.

[steakfaced]

I'm with the TC, though. Ever since the latest patch, I've seen Cleon adamantly insist nothing changed with team talks in regards to morale, but it certainly seems that way, to myself and several others. Just started a new save with "automatic" as my history, and all the Barcelona players hate me. No one can get motivated for anything except the young youth players. As a result we lost 1-0 to Real Oviedo in a friendly.

Of course, that's my fault tactically though, right? If the team talks and press conferences have no effect why are they there then?

[Cleon]

I'm with the TC, though. Ever since the latest patch, I've seen Cleon adamantly insist nothing changed with team talks in regards to morale, but it certainly seems that way, to myself and several others. Just started a new save with "automatic" as my history, and all the Barcelona players hate me. No one can get motivated for anything except the young youth players. As a result we lost 1-0 to Real Oviedo in a friendly.

Of course, that's my fault tactically though, right? If the team talks and press conferences have no effect why are they there then?

And here we have someone incapable of actually reading. Before posting and looking daft claiming things that haven't been said, how about pay attention and post facts?

I'm with the TC, though. Ever since the latest patch, I've seen Cleon adamantly insist nothing changed with team talks in regards to morale, but it certainly seems that way, to myself and several others.

I've never said that so I'd love to see the links where I've said this. Everyone knows morale was tweaked in one of the patches. So please stop making stuff up.

Of course, that's my fault tactically though, right? If the team talks and press conferences have no effect why are they there then?

Seriosuly if you cannot be arsed to read and stop making things up, please don't post. I didn't say this either, you just failed at reading that's all.

Infact you can't have read anything because in my very first line in this thread I put; The press conferences and morale does not have this much of an impact on things, despite what people claim.

Now please either post constructive i.e without made up lies and without the BS or go elsewhere.

[TacticalGenius]

If the team talks and press conferences have no effect why are they there then?

In that case, if someone chooses to let their assistant do it, like many people I know do, why do they win titles? If they are as important as Game and you and others profess, why aren't these people punished with certain relegation and constant sackings? Of course they have an effect but they certainly don't define the match.

[G.A.M.E]

Cleon, I won't reply to everything because I'll go into FM and get some screenshots to put a proper post together for you. I'll just touch on the few things I can answer beforehand so the post I make next doesn't ignore issues you've raised.

Firstly, I don't think the shouts I was using were contradictory; two reasons: 1. I'm almost certain if you activate a shout that is contradicting another one, the new shout is activated whilst the old one is disabled; 2. I'd not say that "Retain Possession" conflicted with "Hassle Opponents". "Hassle Opponents" increases the defensive work, ordering a more pressing game; it would not increase the tempo of the passing, which "Retain Possession" would decrease. So for me, there's no conflict in the tempo; the defensive tempo is increased (work harder and faster to get the ball back), the attacking tempo is decreased (take time to keep the ball and pass it around rather than lose it when you have possession). If anything, "Pass Into Space" would conflict with "Retain Possession", but I figure that "Pass Into Space" instructs the action of the final ball, and you're opting to pass into space rather than give the players the choice to pass to feet.

Secondly, I feel I made early and considered changes in my approach. I went "Standard" 4-1-2-2-1 to begin with; we were under the cosh a bit, so I changed to "Counter". That change helped us settle more and we had more chances. We weren't taking our chances, so I went "Attacking" to try and push more people forward as it was clear Doumbia was taking a lot of shots from tight angles and he might pass if he had more support. It went to half-time. At half-time I told the squad they were disappointing, and they were fired-up. I played for 13 more minutes before deciding that it was obvious we weren't going to score a goal. I brought off Walcott, Ramsey and Wilshere, and put Podolski up top with Doumbia, as well as bringing on Neymar and Vidal. Now with that fire power and plenty of time on the clock I figured we had to convert one of the many chances we were creating, we did not. What happened was Podolski smashed the ball wide from the left side of the goal into the ****ing corner flag from 3 yards out. The goal was at his mercy, the team-talk I gave him was different from the failing players I had on the pitch (incase I'd ****ed up the first one; it certainly hadn't done much to help me).

That's the problem I'm complaining about. The issue is not the fact that we missed lots of chances (I grasp that you're always going to miss a lot of chances if you create a lot of chances, because the game has got to try and keep scores realistic). The issue I have is that we missed chances that should have gone in. There's no two ways about it. You said yourself, there's a sitter that's been missed from 3 yards out; in fact, there's two of them, and a hatful of other chances.

The one thing I'd point out before I do my post is this: Look at the pitch and the position of the shots taken (the two right in front of the goal that have been missed). Then look at the stats below where it says "Clear Cut Chances".

We'll consider the 5 long shots as not being real chances for the sake of argument, but look at the fact I've had 9 half chances, 8 other chances, 17 shots on goal, 6 on target, 7 off target and 4 blocked shots. Then look at the fact not one of them has been considered a Clear Cut Chance, then look at the position of the shots I've taken: 2 saved in the 6 yard box, 1 more saved 8 yards out, 1 missed from 7 yards out (over the bar!), another missed from 8 yards out (smashed wide by a left-footed player that would have found it far easier to score from the angle he's shooting at). Tell me that's not some ********.

[G.A.M.E]

In that case, if someone chooses to let their assistant do it, like many people I know do, why do they win titles? If they are as important as Game and you and others profess, why aren't these people punished with certain relegation and constant sackings? Of course they have an effect but they certainly don't define the match.

I gave a solution to that above.

If you let your assistant manager handle the team-talks and pre-match press conferences for you, surely you nullify the pros and cons of doing them yourself.

I don't know that for certain, but it would make sense that if you don't do them, their impact is discarded. Otherwise you would have an unfair system allowing a gamer to reap the rewards of exceptional interaction with players and journalists (giving him an advantage, no matter how big or small an advantage that may be) simply by that person hiring a staff member with exceptional attributes in that area. I can't imagine SIG allowing that to happen.

The question is, has anyone actually proven anything they're saying in this thread is verbatim? A lot of people are stipulating things with some certainty, but there's not a lot to support any of it; certainly not from the people responsible for coding the match engine. Has anyone of those guys ever clarified their position on this matter, it's surely been raised before, no?

[TacticalGenius]

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, and simplifying it somewhat, you are saying that your players missed X amount of goal scoring opportunities because of what you said in the pre-match presser and/or team-talks?

A tactician, like Cleon, would naturally ask questions of the tactic, how the opportunities came about, and whether they really were viable - not judging it purely by the statistics, and that would be a fair assessment, as many people really do blame everything but the tactic because they just sit and watch key highlights and therefore miss what the real cause is as to why they aren't scoring.

Another perspective is that could be that it's just the way of the ME reducing the chance of 10-0 scorelines by nerfing certain opportunities.

I gave a solution to that above.

If you let your assistant manager handle the team-talks and pre-match press conferences for you, surely you nullify the pros and cons of doing them yourself.

I don't know that for certain, but it would make sense that if you don't do them, their impact is discarded. Otherwise you would have an unfair system allowing a gamer to reap the rewards of exceptional interaction with players and journalists (giving him an advantage, no matter how big or small an advantage that may be) simply by that person hiring a staff member with exceptional attributes in that area. I can't imagine SIG allowing that to happen.

The question is, has anyone actually proven anything they're saying in this thread is verbatim? A lot of people are stipulating things with some certainty, but there's not a lot to support any of it; certainly not from the people responsible for coding the match engine. Has anyone of those guys ever clarified their position on this matter, it's surely been raised before, no?

As to the above regarding the assistant, fair enough.

Until SI actually make a statement on this, which will probably never happen, it will forever be speculation. But I think a theory of it being the ME way of nerfing high scorelines holds more water than it being team-talks, imho.

[TacticalMaestro]

We'll consider the 5 long shots as not being real chances for the sake of argument, but look at the fact I've had 9 half chances, 8 other chances, 17 shots on goal, 6 on target, 7 off target and 4 blocked shots. Then look at the fact not one of them has been considered a Clear Cut Chance, then look at the position of the shots I've taken: 2 saved in the 6 yard box, 1 more saved 8 yards out, 1 missed from 7 yards out (over the bar!), another missed from 8 yards out (smashed wide by a left-footed player that would have found it far easier to score from the angle he's shooting at). Tell me that's not some ********.

I think many people are aware that CCCs are sometimes not identified in the game.

[Cleon]

If anything, "Pass Into Space" would conflict with "Retain Possession", but I figure that "Pass Into Space" instructs the action of the final ball, and you're opting to pass into space rather than give the players the choice to pass to feet.

No. It increases the through balls on the players, meaning it can happen at anytime and not only at the end product.

Secondly, I feel I made early and considered changes in my approach. I went "Standard" 4-1-2-2-1 to begin with; we were under the cosh a bit, so I changed to "Counter". That change helped us settle more and we had more chances.

That's simliar to me and probs what I would have done too.

We weren't taking our chances, so I went "Attacking" to try and push more people forward as it was clear Doumbia was taking a lot of shots from tight angles and he might pass if he had more support.

Why do people think going more attacking when not taking your chances increases the quality? It reduces them. They'd be playing higher up the pitch and try been more aggressive in their passing play which isn't always a good sign. You'd be getting even more tight angles and rushed balls.

It went to half-time. At half-time I told the squad they were disappointing, and they were fired-up. I played for 13 more minutes before deciding that it was obvious we weren't going to score a goal. I brought off Walcott, Ramsey and Wilshere, and put Podolski up top with Doumbia, as well as bringing on Neymar and Vidal. Now with that fire power and plenty of time on the clock I figured we had to convert one of the many chances we were creating, we did not. What happened was Podolski smashed the ball wide from the left side of the goal into the ****ing corner flag from 3 yards out. The goal was at his mercy, the team-talk I gave him was different from the failing players I had on the pitch (incase I'd ****ed up the first one; it certainly hadn't done much to help me).

I apologise if I've missed something glaring obviosu here but Podolski didn't play in the screenshot you posted. Are you talking about 2 seperate matches in here? Am I been thick? I am looking off my phone though so is possible.

Plus you claim that the media/team talk side of things play to big a role. Well if that was the case then when you had a squad fired up at halftime, doesn't that go against what you've been trying to prove in the thread?

That's the problem I'm complaining about. The issue is not the fact that we missed lots of chances (I grasp that you're always going to miss a lot of chances if you create a lot of chances, because the game has got to try and keep scores realistic). The issue I have is that we missed chances that should have gone in. There's no two ways about it. You said yourself, there's a sitter that's been missed from 3 yards out; in fact, there's two of them, and a hatful of other chances.

But you've not shown the PKM, I don't know if they are sitters or not. The screenshot you showed doesn;t tell the story. However the clips will when you show the PKM.

The one thing I'd point out before I do my post is this: Look at the pitch and the position of the shots taken (the two right in front of the goal that have been missed). Then look at the stats below where it says "Clear Cut Chances".

You do know that 'CCC's' are misleading right? They don't actually show clear cut chances like you'd think, some of them are more tricky than the name suggest. This as been brought up loads and explained. It does need renaming though.

We'll consider the 5 long shots as not being real chances for the sake of argument, but look at the fact I've had 9 half chances, 8 other chances, 17 shots on goal, 6 on target, 7 off target and 4 blocked shots. Then look at the fact not one of them has been considered a Clear Cut Chance, then look at the position of the shots I've taken: 2 saved in the 6 yard box, 1 more saved 8 yards out, 1 missed from 7 yards out (over the bar!), another missed from 8 yards out (smashed wide by a left-footed player that would have found it far easier to score from the angle he's shooting at). Tell me that's not some ********.

The overall stats have never and never will show the full picture though. For that you have to use the analysis tab and view the clips back to see exactly how it went.

When will you be able to get the PKM up? As that will be much better as I'll be able to see everything you did and look at what you changed and the players motivation etc.

[Seule]

I love lamp.

But seriously. I had a patch these past couple of days, I got Welbeck in on loan and he started the season off great, banging them in all over the place. The last 4 games, he has had no less than 8 clear chances through 1 on 1 with the keeper, on top of multiple other really good chances at close range and is goalless. Sometimes good players miss, a lot. At least you haven't had one of those games where you hit the woodwork 12 times.. .....

Just a tactical question. 8% crosses completed, 52% defensive pass completion. You play through the middle a lot, with through balls from the back?

[G.A.M.E]

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, and simplifying it somewhat, you are saying that your players missed X amount of goal scoring opportunities because of what you said in the pre-match presser and/or team-talks?

A tactician, like Cleon, would naturally ask questions of the tactic, how the opportunities came about, and whether they really were viable - not judging it purely by the statistics, and that would be a fair assessment, as many people really do blame everything but the tactic because they just sit and watch key highlights and therefore miss what the real cause is as to why they aren't scoring.

Another perspective is that could be that it's just the way of the ME reducing the chance of 10-0 scorelines by nerfing certain opportunities.

In the simplest of terms I believe the following;

1. The balance of a match is dictated by pre-match comments in the press, team talks and tactical approach. Things like morale, form and player ability also play a significant part.

2. I think that the pre-match comments (in particular) are too sensitive. I think they override the influence of form, morale, player ability and tactical approach far too much. I think making positive comments (getting the media talks right) gives you a boost going into the game; you're more clinical in front of goal and/or the opposition are unsettled (they're less clinical). At that juncture your tactics come into play; if you're setup right you'll create lots of chances and because of the positive pre-match comments you will take them more frequently. Form and morale will affect the nature of your team talks, allowing you to benefit from easier or harder team talks; the team talks can provide a small boost one way or the other (more clinical or less clinical).

To me, it's all about the taking of chances. I find that if the team talks haven't been good or I've maybe taken the wrong approach pre-match (maybe giving the team the impression the game would be easy, and they become overconfident), that you'll miss an incredible amount of chances. On the other hand, if you get it right (see my post about Barcelona) and you play down the expectancy pre-match, you'll perform far, far better.

There's a load of guides on team talks, and a lot of interest in them. That alone shows how crucial they are to people. There's clearly people who feel team talks are their undoing. However, for me, team talks just allow the opportunity for course correction, it's the pre-match press conferences that seem to set the tone for the entire theme of the game (miss everything in site or overwhelm the opposition).

[G.A.M.E]

No. It increases the through balls on the players, meaning it can happen at anytime and not only at the end product.

That's simliar to me and probs what I would have done too.

Why do people think going more attacking when not taking your chances increases the quality? It reduces them. They'd be playing higher up the pitch and try been more aggressive in their passing play which isn't always a good sign. You'd be getting even more tight angles and rushed balls.

I apologise if I've missed something glaring obviosu here but Podolski didn't play in the screenshot you posted. Are you talking about 2 seperate matches in here? Am I been thick? I am looking off my phone though so is possible.

Plus you claim that the media/team talk side of things play to big a role. Well if that was the case then when you had a squad fired up at halftime, doesn't that go against what you've been trying to prove in the thread?

But you've not shown the PKM, I don't know if they are sitters or not. The screenshot you showed doesn;t tell the story. However the clips will when you show the PKM.

You do know that 'CCC's' are misleading right? They don't actually show clear cut chances like you'd think, some of them are more tricky than the name suggest. This as been brought up loads and explained. It does need renaming though.

The overall stats have never and never will show the full picture though. For that you have to use the analysis tab and view the clips back to see exactly how it went.

When will you be able to get the PKM up? As that will be much better as I'll be able to see everything you did and look at what you changed and the players motivation etc.

My Mac cuts off the screen, so that's why you couldn't see Podolski.

On a more relevant note, is the PKM the only thing you want?

[Cleon]

I gave a solution to that above.

If you let your assistant manager handle the team-talks and pre-match press conferences for you, surely you nullify the pros and cons of doing them yourself.

Or risk getting them more wrong if you assistant is cack?

I don't know that for certain, but it would make sense that if you don't do them, their impact is discarded. Otherwise you would have an unfair system allowing a gamer to reap the rewards of exceptional interaction with players and journalists (giving him an advantage, no matter how big or small an advantage that may be) simply by that person hiring a staff member with exceptional attributes in that area. I can't imagine SIG allowing that to happen.

There not discarded at all........whether you do them or the assistant its the same risk/reward. Nothing gets discarded just because you don't use them.

The question is, has anyone actually proven anything they're saying in this thread is verbatim? A lot of people are stipulating things with some certainty, but there's not a lot to support any of it; certainly not from the people responsible for coding the match engine. Has anyone of those guys ever clarified their position on this matter, it's surely been raised before, no?

paulc, wwfan and many others have said it in the past. The fact that you aren't a regular here and don't really follow SI forums (your own admission) doesn't mean its not true just because you haven't seen the posts. If you was more regular especially in General then you'd know what is in here as fact and see it from those mentioned.

[Cleon]

My Mac cuts off the screen, so that's why you couldn't see Podolski.

On a more relevant note, is the PKM the only thing you want?

Yeah please as that will show me everything I need to look at. I can analyse everything then and post tomorrow about it

[G.A.M.E]

Or risk getting them more wrong if you assistant is cack?

There not discarded at all........whether you do them or the assistant its the same risk/reward. Nothing gets discarded just because you don't use them.

paulc, wwfan and many others have said it in the past. The fact that you aren't a regular here and don't really follow SI forums (your own admission) doesn't mean its not true just because you haven't seen the posts. If you was more regular especially in General then you'd know what is in here as fact and see it from those mentioned.

Look, if I'm wrong about it, I'm wrong. I'm only asking, has anyone actually documented how these things tie together?

If Paul Collyer or Richard have said that media and team talks have x amount of effect on the ME, then that's all I want to know. It'll prove things one way or the other. If it's a small amount, I need to stop playing the game watching highlights and see how I can make the team work better together in the games where I make a slight mistake. But, my feeling is, there's just some games you're never give the chance to win –– purely, as I said before, because you miss the most easy of chances.

I'll get that PKM uploaded; it'll save me writing out a post detailing exactly what I did and why I did it.

[TacticalGenius]

In the simplest of terms I believe the following;

1. The balance of a match is dictated by pre-match comments in the press, team talks and tactical approach. Things like morale, form and player ability also play a significant part.

2. I think that the pre-match comments (in particular) are too sensitive. I think they override the influence of form, morale, player ability and tactical approach far too much. I think making positive comments (getting the media talks right) gives you a boost going into the game; you're more clinical in front of goal and/or the opposition are unsettled (they're less clinical). At that juncture your tactics come into play; if you're setup right you'll create lots of chances and because of the positive pre-match comments you will take them more frequently. Form and morale will affect the nature of your team talks, allowing you to benefit from easier or harder team talks; the team talks can provide a small boost one way or the other (more clinical or less clinical).

To me, it's all about the taking of chances. I find that if the team talks haven't been good or I've maybe taken the wrong approach pre-match (maybe giving the team the impression the game would be easy, and they become overconfident), that you'll miss an incredible amount of chances. On the other hand, if you get it right (see my post about Barcelona) and you play down the expectancy pre-match, you'll perform far, far better.

There's a load of guides on team talks, and a lot of interest in them. That alone shows how crucial they are to people. There's clearly people who feel team talks are their undoing. However, for me, team talks just allow the opportunity for course correction, it's the pre-match press conferences that seem to set the tone for the entire theme of the game (miss everything in site or overwhelm the opposition).

Ok yes I see where you're going with this now. I'll certainly concede that if a player/players are feeling complacent or pressured due to something said, they do play horrendously regardless of pre-match form and morale. For me though, barring those extremes - which aren't all that frequent if you know your team well and choose your answers accordingly - I feel that the team-talks/pressers don't change much.

As for 'how crucial they are to people', the team-talks/pressers could do absolutely nothing at all to affect outcome, but people will believe they do purely because they are there in the game. Superstition, ritual, placebo effect.

[G.A.M.E]

Yeah please as that will show me everything I need to look at. I can analyse everything then and post tomorrow about it

http://www.sendspace.com/file/9uri3g

[Cleon]

http://www.sendspace.com/file/9uri3g

Cheers kind sir

[G.A.M.E]

Ok yes I see where you're going with this now. I'll certainly concede that if a player/players are feeling complacent or pressured due to something said, they do play horrendously regardless of pre-match form and morale. For me though, barring those extremes - which aren't all that frequent if you know your team well and choose your answers accordingly - I feel that the team-talks/pressers don't change much.

As for 'how crucial they are to people', the team-talks/pressers could do absolutely nothing at all to affect outcome, but people will believe they do purely because they are there in the game. Superstition, ritual, placebo effect.

I do these all the time, so I know what to say more often than not. However, coming up against smaller teams (like I did when I lost the FA Cup final to Burnley), I clearly have no idea how to approach those games. I know not to be over-confident as it'll make the team lazy and they won't be clinical, but clearly I'm saying something that's contributing to the lack of potency against these teams. If it was the other way around, and it was big teams I couldn't beat, then I'd look to the tactics. But it's not a case of me not being able to break down the opposition, I can do that, I just can't convert the multitude of chances I get in certain games.

It's not a regular occurrence as in it happens every few games. This happens every 20 games, minimum, but it's regular.

[wwfan]

79% win record with Arsenal

This is far more relevant than team talks and press conferences. With this kind of win record, you are going to ramp up the pressure and expectations on your team during the streaks you achieve. While early on in a streak you'll see some great results and performances as confidence builds (i.e. the team plays above itself), as the streak extends the pressure of keeping it going will result in some nervous performances (i.e. the team plays below itself), especially against teams you should be beating. If you have a less than professional squad, complacency will also become an issue.

Pre-game press conferences and team talks can greaten or lessen this, but not to a huge margin, as the pressure has built independently of the upcoming match. However, the half-time team talk can be vital in turning around a poor performance, as they relate to the match events alone. The players are now reacting to what is going on in the match, not the events leading up to the match, so are now far more reactive to a manager's motivational ability.

[Cleon]

I’m going to start with the Podolski chance on 84 minutes.

It wasn’t that great of a chance really. The play and movement to begin with was brilliant but he allowed the defender to catch him. Here is one angle of the shot;

This is it from another angle;

The left side is all covered and he has no option but to shoot across the keeper. If you actually watch the clip back and slow it down from this angle. You can see the defender caught him up and was just about to win the ball. This means he was under an enormous amount of pressure and this would affect his decision making and how well he pulled off the shot.

Plus the fact the keeper had a good angle for this and narrowed Podolski’s shooting angle was more down to good keeping than a bad miss.

In fact this screenshot shows this even better;

You can see the keepers position and Podolski’s and you can see the angle is very tight and not an easy chance at all.

As for Doumbia the 3 shots he actually had saved 2 of them he was never going to score, the ones in the 2nd half near end of the game. The angle was too tight, in fact I could have been watching the same clip. Both chances were identical to each other.

The one he missed in the first half which was saved he was just unlucky with that one and on another day I'm sure he'd have scored. I'm guessing he's scored a fair few for you with simliar moves.

The blocked one he had the defender got his foot in the way after Doumbia checked back with the ball.

The two he missed, well I agree he should have done better with those. He does seem a selfish striker though. I’ve never managed him or used him. But he looks a real handful and does a lot of running with the ball from wide areas and deep.

In both the missed chances though he had hardly any movement in front of him and no real better options other than take the shot himself. He might have at the start of the move (not sure how you’re using him so not sure of the settings) but after running with the ball he had no other option but to shoot.

I didn’t do screenshots for any of Doumbia’s as I felt he played well or was most likely to score from the front players I’ve looked at so far.

[G.A.M.E]

79% win record with Arsenal

This is far more relevant than team talks and press conferences. With this kind of win record, you are going to ramp up the pressure and expectations on your team during the streaks you achieve. While early on in a streak you'll see some great results and performances as confidence builds (i.e. the team plays above itself), as the streak extends the pressure of keeping it going will result in some nervous performances (i.e. the team plays below itself), especially against teams you should be beating. If you have a less than professional squad, complacency will also become an issue.

Pre-game press conferences and team talks can greaten or lessen this, but not to a huge margin, as the pressure has built independently of the upcoming match. However, the half-time team talk can be vital in turning around a poor performance, as they relate to the match events alone. The players are now reacting to what is going on in the match, not the events leading up to the match, so are now far more reactive to a manager's motivational ability.

Thanks for taking time out and explaining it, Richard.

I knew it was pressure causing the players to miss opportunities, but I assumed this was because of what I was saying in pre-match press conferences or team talks (given that both are the only way I am able to affect the pressure my players are under). It didn't occur to me that the game had evolved to the point where there'd be pressure from good results affecting the players. I've certainly never read about this being a feature of the game.

If it's a natural occurrence in the game, where pressure builds as results get better, that would explain everything as much as the suspicions regarding the pre-match interaction ever would; much better in fact. Thinking about each time it has occurred, it's been on the back of a long run of good results. As you've outlined things above, I did get some fantastic results early on, and the team was absolutely unbeatable for a while; then in the new season (this season) I found I had to mix the formation around to try and get a more productive attacking line. Things got better, but again, this has all come undone at the end of a good streak.

I guess we have our answers!

[Cleon]

Thanks for taking time out and explaining it, Richard.

I knew it was pressure causing the players to miss opportunities, but I assumed this was because of what I was saying in pre-match press conferences or team talks (given that both are the only way I am able to affect the pressure my players are under). It didn't occur to me that the game had evolved to the point where there'd be pressure from good results affecting the players. I've certainly never read about this being a feature of the game.

If it's a natural occurrence in the game, where pressure builds as results get better, that would explain everything as much as the suspicions regarding the pre-match interaction ever would; much better in fact. Thinking about each time it has occurred, it's been on the back of a long run of good results. As you've outlined things above, I did get some fantastic results early on, and the team was absolutely unbeatable for a while; then in the new season (this season) I found I had to mix the formation around to try and get a more productive attacking line. Things got better, but again, this has all come undone at the end of a good streak.

I guess we have our answers!

What sort of streak was you on in the PKM I just watched? This wasn't down to nervous I don't feel. You play a very open game of football, end to end almost. Some of the play in this game was quite fast and a few times you could have done so much more with the ball as you had men commited forward but then lost it. Then allowed WBA to begin their own attacks.

I enjoyed the style you played, I like open football like this I think its more pleasing on the eye.

One thing I did notice was sometimes you had runners to far ahead of play then they have to stand for 10-15 seconds and drop back due to whoever was on the ball been selfish and not releasing it but rather running constant with the ball.. Meaning the oppositions defence pushed back up and limiting space again.

Somethings could have been nerves but none of the shots are from what I've just watched. Maybe other elements of the play was, but infront of goal they were just poor chances you created.

[wwfan]

There are all kind of minor things that can impact on how much players are being affected by pressure or complacency. How long the streak is, how far clear at the top of the table the team is, the psychological make-up of the squad etc. How much success the squad has had in recent years can also result in a greater likelihood of repeating poor performances (the clue being players regularly telling you that they want a new challenge).

Similar factors also influence the opposition. A team with the right psychological make-up is likely to raise its game against the team to beat in the division, whereas one with a less ambitious perspective might crumble. What I have found in tight title run ins is that, if you employ a sound media and motivational strategy, the AI team always blinks first.

In such instances, the small advantages the media and man management can provide become increasingly key. Going into a match with only three players nervous versus your title rival having five nervous can lead to a slightly better performance. You might sneak a one goal lead, whereas they go into the last third of a match at 0-0. What you and they do tactically at such points can make all the difference. Do you push for the kill, needing the increased goal difference, or do you settle for the narrow win (and can your team cope with the pressure of defending the narrow lead for 20 minutes?). Do they open up and risk being hit on the counter or do they decide a point is enough on the day?

Unfortunately, the overall AI isn't good enough to make such a scenario happen regularly enough. Your team too often opens up a decisive margin 2/3 of the way into a campaign. Obviously, that is the long-term target though.

[G.A.M.E]

@Cleon

My main gripe with this whole situation was that I believed the game was putting too much emphasis on the importance of pre-match press conferences and team talks. With my players failing to score [what I perceived to be] easy chances under enormous self-created pressure, I assumed I was taking the wrong approach in those areas, making a tiny mistake and paying a ridiculous price for it. Now I know pressure is something that builds within the game as streaks occur –– which is the logical approach to take –– I can fully accept that there should have been pressure on the team to get the result, and I'm at fault for not calming nerves instead of reminding the players to win [if only I knew earlier, Richard!!].

Taking all of that into account, I can completely see what you're saying with the chances I had in the game. I can only explain my initial reaction by saying I was convinced that the game was creating pressure for my players [and making them play like a bag of assholes] because of a slight mistake I may have made in my approach to the match; that has put me in the mindset that there's nothing I can do to affect the game; coupled with the fact that I'm watching highlights at speed and I am seeing lots of attacks and no end product, it's just pissed me off more than anything else. Looking at what you've shown there, it's clear to see that when not moving at 500mph on my screen, Podolski does have a far more difficult chance that it appeared he had (although, I'd have still gone for the near post with power; because I'm a pro).

Anyway, having an explanation from Richard as to why the players would be under pressure in the first place pretty much nullifies any issues I had with players not taking their chances in the game. I'd not have thought the game was so advanced that it would do that, but now I know it does, I can try to factor that into my team talks. I realise I was doing that intermittently (saying we'd become a bigger scalp the longer the run went on, and playing down the streak), but I've not done that recently; and that might have helped somewhat. Also, whilst I was cautious in my approach to the team talk, I still demanded a win; maybe I should have explored a different route (especially at half-time when I told the team they were a ****ing waste of space).

At least we have answers; that's all I wanted. Thanks for putting so much effort into helping me find a conclusion; I'm sure there's a lot of people who've been in the same boat, won't have commented on it (will have saved themselves the hassle of looking like raving lunatics, which I did not) and will now have a bit more of a clue when it comes to handling these situations as a result

[wwfan]

As you've outlined things above, I did get some fantastic results early on, and the team was absolutely unbeatable for a while; then in the new season (this season) I found I had to mix the formation around to try and get a more productive attacking line.

Starting a season can always be interesting. You need different strategies depending on the summer activities of your players. If everyone was playing golf or lying around on the beach, you need to work them hard and give them a number of tough pre-season games. However, if everyone was playing international football, you require a lot less friendlies, with the majority of them being gentle strolls.

You also need to take into account the opening fixtures. Does the team need to hit the ground running or should 75% level performances be enough to see you through the opening few weeks? If the former, you need to ensure the players are as match fit as possible (more, tougher friendlies), but have a rotational policy to reduce jadedness later in the season. If the latter, you can let the players ease into match sharpness during the early games (less, easier friendlies), which means rotation isn't going to be necessary until you hit bad winter weather.

Balancing all the above takes a little thought, but it generally ensures you start the season with a decent unbeaten streak. It is something I do sometimes get wrong though, even now. However, I don't worry too much about having a stuttering start to a season. The key narrative happens later in the year, and that's what I focus on.

[wwfan]

@Cleon

My main gripe with this whole situation was that I believed the game was putting too much emphasis on the importance of pre-match press conferences and team talks. With my players failing to score [what I perceived to be] easy chances under enormous self-created pressure, I assumed I was taking the wrong approach in those areas, making a tiny mistake and paying a ridiculous price for it. Now I know pressure is something that builds within the game as streaks occur –– which is the logical approach to take –– I can fully accept that there should have been pressure on the team to get the result, and I'm at fault for not calming nerves instead of reminding the players to win [if only I knew earlier, Richard!!].

Every streak will end at some point, so you will only ever be delaying the inevitable. However, with the right strategy, you should be able to prevent any losses against poor sides and only have to occasionally take it on the chin against a better one.

[G.A.M.E]

What sort of streak was you on in the PKM I just watched? This wasn't down to nervous I don't feel. You play a very open game of football, end to end almost. Some of the play in this game was quite fast and a few times you could have done so much more with the ball as you had men commited forward but then lost it. Then allowed WBA to begin their own attacks.

I enjoyed the style you played, I like open football like this I think its more pleasing on the eye.

One thing I did notice was sometimes you had runners to far ahead of play then they have to stand for 10-15 seconds and drop back due to whoever was on the ball been selfish and not releasing it but rather running constant with the ball.. Meaning the oppositions defence pushed back up and limiting space again.

Somethings could have been nerves but none of the shots are from what I've just watched. Maybe other elements of the play was, but infront of goal they were just poor chances you created.

I can't remember the exact streak, we've been up and down, but I've definitely not lost in a while; I drew at home to some **** team a few games ago, which is the worst result I've had since late last season.

With the style of football we play, I've gone for a very fluid, very creative system. It's amazing one moment, heart in mouth the next; it's a lot of fun to watch. It hinges around my philosophy of the perfect tactic, but I can't replicate it as I want because I can't get the DMC to slot into the back 2 and make a 3. Because of this little ME issue, that creates a gap in the heart of my midfield and causes all kinds of issues when a team comes at me on the counter, but fortunately I have really fast defenders who cover for me 99% of the time, so I just roll with it; it's working!

With the tactic in this match, though, I was adjusting the style of play quite a lot, and had a very unbalanced attack in a bid to throw bodies into the box to get on the end of something; that's probably created less space in the end and meant we were over exposed. We're usually pretty solid at the back (only conceded 2-3 goals this season in about 10 games), but they've gotten a free-kick and done me for it!

There are all kind of minor things that can impact on how much players are being affected by pressure or complacency. How long the streak is, how far clear at the top of the table the team is, the psychological make-up of the squad etc. How much success the squad has had in recent years can also result in a greater likelihood of repeating poor performances (the clue being players regularly telling you that they want a new challenge).

Similar factors also influence the opposition. A team with the right psychological make-up is likely to raise its game against the team to beat in the division, whereas one with a less ambitious perspective might crumble. What I have found in tight title run ins is that, if you employ a sound media and motivational strategy, the AI team always blinks first.

In such instances, the small advantages the media and man management can provide become increasingly key. Going into a match with only three players nervous versus your title rival having five nervous can lead to a slightly better performance. You might sneak a one goal lead, whereas they go into the last third of a match at 0-0. What you and they do tactically at such points can make all the difference. Do you push for the kill, needing the increased goal difference, or do you settle for the narrow win (and can your team cope with the pressure of defending the narrow lead for 20 minutes?). Do they open up and risk being hit on the counter or do they decide a point is enough on the day?

Unfortunately, the overall AI isn't good enough to make such a scenario happen regularly enough. Your team too often opens up a decisive margin 2/3 of the way into a campaign. Obviously, that is the long-term target though.

Thanks for this post, it's actually very useful to know all of this information.

I'm quite lucky, and have known it for a while, because I have a very determined squad. I'm not sure when they became like that, but they're very, very resilient as a result. They take abuse like Popeye takes spinach, so I have it pretty easy when it comes to motivating them after a poor performance.

With regard to the "AI always blinks first", by this do you mean that the AI will make comments to try and unsettle you in the press? I usually ignore them, but I recall last season (when I performed best) I sometimes replied back and dismissed their title prospects, etc.; this season I've not done that, and I've been less impressive. Am I missing a beat by not engaging more with this would you say?

[G.A.M.E]

Starting a season can always be interesting. You need different strategies depending on the summer activities of your players. If everyone was playing golf or lying around on the beach, you need to work them hard and give them a number of tough pre-season games. However, if everyone was playing international football, you require a lot less friendlies, with the majority of them being gentle strolls.

You also need to take into account the opening fixtures. Does the team need to hit the ground running or should 75% level performances be enough to see you through the opening few weeks? If the former, you need to ensure the players are as match fit as possible (more, tougher friendlies), but have a rotational policy to reduce jadedness later in the season. If the latter, you can let the players ease into match sharpness during the early games (less, easier friendlies), which means rotation isn't going to be necessary until you hit bad winter weather.

Balancing all the above takes a little thought, but it generally ensures you start the season with a decent unbeaten streak. It is something I do sometimes get wrong though, even now. However, I don't worry too much about having a stuttering start to a season. The key narrative happens later in the year, and that's what I focus on.

Do you remember how beautifully simple Football Manager was before you and Millie got your mitts on the match engine?

[wwfan]

Thanks for this post, it's actually very useful to know all of this information.

I'm quite lucky, and have known it for a while, because I have a very determined squad. I'm not sure when they became like that, but they're very, very resilient as a result. They take abuse like Popeye takes spinach, so I have it pretty easy when it comes to motivating them after a poor performance.

With regard to the "AI always blinks first", by this do you mean that the AI will make comments to try and unsettle you in the press? I usually ignore them, but I recall last season (when I performed best) I sometimes replied back and dismissed their title prospects, etc.; this season I've not done that, and I've been less impressive. Am I missing a beat by not engaging more with this would you say?

Blinks first means they put in the bad performance when it matters, whereas my team doesn't.

As for your media strategy, Heath would say yes. I'm not as strategic as him though. I respond based on whether I think my interaction will be beneficial or detrimental to my own team and that's about it. If I'm not sure, I say nothing.

Heath might decide to talk about the manager of the team next up to play the title challenger, building him up, or to express admiration for one of the team's players in a hope of psyching him up for the game. He'd certainly be able to answer this type of thing far better than I can.

[wwfan]

Do you remember how beautifully simple Football Manager was before you and Millie got your mitts on the match engine?

This stuff was all happening anyway. A better ME (i.e. one in which users can't simply overpower it by exploiting its flaws) just makes it more important. Using TC created tactics ensures it is relevant, whereas using classic ones designed to exploit makes much of it unnecessary.

None of my advice will result in your team becoming unplayably good. It can, however, help you turn a few losses into draws and draws into wins over the course of a season. The few extra points that brings can make all the difference.

[G.A.M.E]

Blinks first means they put in the bad performance when it matters, whereas my team doesn't.

As for your media strategy, Heath would say yes. I'm not as strategic as him though. I respond based on whether I think my interaction will be beneficial or detrimental to my own team and that's about it. If I'm not sure, I say nothing.

Heath might decide to talk about the manager of the team next up to play the title challenger, building him up, or to express admiration for one of the team's players in a hope of psyching him up for the game. He'd certainly be able to answer this type of thing far better than I can.

No, no; that's perfect. I just wanted to know if you meant blinks were opposition managers cracking and talking about the teams in the media.

I often try to influence other rival games by talking up the weaker opponent, and by dismissing the rival's chances, et cetera. That works on the odd occasion (which is the best you can hope for really). I don't tend to get involved beyond that; certainly not with the "x said y about you, would you like to respond" items anyway.

[wwfan]

I'm quite lucky, and have known it for a while, because I have a very determined squad. I'm not sure when they became like that, but they're very, very resilient as a result. They take abuse like Popeye takes spinach, so I have it pretty easy when it comes to motivating them after a poor performance.

My current squad is highly professional. The overall determination levels aren't massively high. I'd need a different motivational strategy than you. A lot of the time I just rely on the professionalism and do very little except deflect pressure building questions in conferences and let them get on with it in matches.

[G.A.M.E]

This stuff was all happening anyway. A better ME (i.e. one in which users can't simply overpower it by exploiting its flaws) just makes it more important. Using TC created tactics ensures it is relevant, whereas using classic ones designed to exploit makes much of it unnecessary.

None of my advice will result in your team becoming unplayably good. It can, however, help you turn a few losses into draws and draws into wins over the course of a season. The few extra points that brings can make all the difference.

My position is, if I can comprehend the mechanics of the game I have a fair chance of affecting the game in a positive way based on what I know about football in reality. I think that's the kind of starting point many people would like to have, and possibly feel they don't have. I certainly learned a lot here tonight that I'd never heard a thing about, and I wrote a guide on the game 2 years ago. It just goes to show, there does need to be more transparency as to how this game is presented with regard to all the features is has linking with each other. I barely played last year's edition, and haven't gotten many hours in on this one due to working on Supports Interactive since March last year. I do feel as if tonight, I've underestimated how much the game has developed since I played it so intimately.

It might be worth suggesting to the powers that be, that a lot less questions would be raised on the forums if people playing the game were given some insight as to how certain elements of the game could reap positive results for them. There's no official literature that indicates how team talks can give you a little boost at half time (or how the tone system is best used), etc. These things might really go a long way to helping people get more from their games; certainly to give people the opportunity to better express their understanding of football management within the framework of the game. After all, that's the point of it.

Irrespective of that, I do appreciate your posting in here. You have a very unique insight into the game on a technical level that I don't believe many people get the opportunity to understand.

[G.A.M.E]

My current squad is highly professional. The overall determination levels aren't massively high. I'd need a different motivational strategy than you. A lot of the time I just rely on the professionalism and do very little except deflect pressure building questions in conferences and let them get on with it in matches.

Well, I've picked up the tone system after about a season (barely confident with it as a whole, but with a very determined team I know how to inspire them in most situations; except against far weaker opponents as this topic suggests). I don't know how I'd fare with a team with such a radically different personality; I guess I'd always try to consider how best to deal with this mindset in reality, after all these scenarios are going to be modelled on reality given the game is a simulation, but even then, with the tone system added into the equation, it's tricky to say with certainty that you can motivate players using it. I suppose like anything, the more you use it, the more you'll understand it. Maybe I need to start playing with a variety of teams instead of sitting pretty at Arsenal

[wwfan]

Calm: For the fans is my go to team talk with a highly professional squad. I also use you know what's required tonight for variety. I only deviate when I feel pressure or complacency is likely to be high, or as a shock tactic after a great or horrible half.

A key misconception people have with team talks is that there is a right one for any given scoreline. They don't work like that. They are contextual. If you, as Arsenal, are 1-0 up against Birmingham at half time, disappointing might be your best bet. If, however, Birmingham were leading you 1-0, a delighted team talk would be the best option the Birmingham manager could choose.

[G.A.M.E]

I love lamp.

But seriously. I had a patch these past couple of days, I got Welbeck in on loan and he started the season off great, banging them in all over the place. The last 4 games, he has had no less than 8 clear chances through 1 on 1 with the keeper, on top of multiple other really good chances at close range and is goalless. Sometimes good players miss, a lot. At least you haven't had one of those games where you hit the woodwork 12 times.. .....

Just a tactical question. 8% crosses completed, 52% defensive pass completion. You play through the middle a lot, with through balls from the back?

I didn't see this until now, sorry.

My tactic is based on overloading the opposition at both ends. I usually deploy a 4-1-2-2-1 (4-3-3, essentially) with wingers who mostly cut inside to make a front 3; my full backs are then very attacking and try to get up to hold the space outside as the wingers cut inside. With the pace in the side, I counter attack; Spring theory; sit back, compress and become tight to break through, then when in possession break at speed with direct passing. I'd say a lot of our attacks worked in that manner. I don't focus passing anywhere in particular, although I notice we go down the wings most of the time. I couldn't really give you an accurate assessment of our crossing as we mix it up; sometimes the ball is crossed, other times it's played early inside to the midfielders who'll play a through ball or spread the play to the other flank.

With regard to this match, things were all over the place in terms of tactical changes. I don't think the statistics in this game would reflect the usual pattern of things; not that I know what the usual pattern of things looks like; I started with a theory and left it to work. I don't pay much attention to the statistics the game throws out, as a lot of the time I'm told I have less possession but I know I've dominated the game, etc. Maybe I need to look at that more, given the contents of the topic

[G.A.M.E]

Calm: For the fans is my go to team talk with a highly professional squad. I also use you know what's required tonight for variety. I only deviate when I feel pressure or complacency is likely to be high, or as a shock tactic after a great or horrible half.

A key misconception people have with team talks is that there is a right one for any given scoreline. They don't work like that. They are contextual. If you, as Arsenal, are 1-0 up against Birmingham at half time, disappointing might be your best bet. If, however, Birmingham were leading you 1-0, a delighted team talk would be the best option the Birmingham manager could choose.

My biggest concern when getting to half time after a clinical performance is having to tell the team they did well. I always fear it will allow complacency to creep in.

What I noticed recently was, if I used the Cautious tone, and said I was happy, the team were delighted and they still pushed on. I guess the tone in which you give the talk can be the key to whether you're going to see good reactions or not. It can certainly allow you more freedom to say what you may think is correct if you fear that option could unbalance the way the game is going.

[wwfan]

My biggest concern when getting to half time after a clinical performance is having to tell the team they did well. I always fear it will allow complacency to creep in.

What I noticed recently was, if I used the Cautious tone, and said I was happy, the team were delighted and they still pushed on. I guess the tone in which you give the talk can be the key to whether you're going to see good reactions or not. It can certainly allow you more freedom to say what you may think is correct if you fear that option could unbalance the way the game is going.

Sounds like you've got a good handle on it.

Once I've got a top squad, I don't praise very much, as they are only achieving expectations. However, when I'm managing a weaker squad that is outperforming expectations, I can be effusive.

[G.A.M.E]

Sounds like you've got a good handle on it.

Once I've got a top squad, I don't praise very much, as they are only achieving expectations. However, when I'm managing a weaker squad that is outperforming expectations, I can be effusive.

I think so. It's just a case of being realistic with the scoreline, performance and expectation level. You do have to consider the overall mentality of the team and balance that with the tone system, but I think that's something you can pick up by experimenting with different options.

The problem I think most people have is, you don't always feel confident in what you're doing, and you end up feeling like a monkey pushing buttons; there's an awful lot of options with the team talks and various interaction modules these days

[nerf]

There's no official literature that indicates how team talks can give you a little boost at half time (or how the tone system is best used), etc.

The problem I think most people have is, you don't always feel confident in what you're doing, and you end up feeling like a monkey pushing buttons; there's an awful lot of options with the team talks and various interaction modules these days

From a design perspective, I imagine the aim is to encourage you to judge the situation like a real manager. To think how you would approach the situation in real-life, and run the risk of not always pressing the win button.

If the impact of everything was laid out, the danger is that you would become an informed monkey pushing the button that always brings you food.

There are many other occasions in game design when simplicity and transparency is beneficial, but I think it would be a shame if the subject of psychology was reduced to being thought of in terms of mechanics and binary outputs.

[G.A.M.E]

From a design perspective, I imagine the aim is to encourage you to judge the situation like a real manager. To think how you would approach the situation in real-life, and run the risk of not always pressing the win button.

If the impact of everything was laid out, the danger is that you would become an informed monkey pushing the button that always brings you food.

There are many other occasions in game design when simplicity and transparency is beneficial, but I think it would be a shame if the subject of psychology was reduced to being thought of in terms of mechanics and binary outputs.

There's a limit to restricting information in a bid to inspire people to think about their actions, then there's not giving people enough information to make informed decisions.

As it is now, you have around six tones, then around 6 more choices; that's a 36/1 chance you're going to select the right option. Of course, using common sense you can immediately halve that most of the time, but you still only have around a 18/1 chance of getting things right. Which tone is going to be optimal? Which option should I pick from that point on; should I be delicate or demanding?… etc.

There's a lot to consider, to the point where people come here asking for help with the interaction side of the game. I came here to complain because I was convinced either pre-match press talks or team talks were having a severe impact on the tactics I employed. It turns out, there's an entirely different module at work that I didn't even know existed. It's that lack of transparency that needs adjusting, so that the user knows what elements are in play and can use their own judgement to interact with the game from an informed perspective. Right now, as I said, you do feel like it's a game of roulette pre-match or when you're doing the team meetings, etc. Morale can play a big part in player performance, it seems unfair that you have to handle it without all the proper information.