International Adaptability - A New Stat

[ManagerFootball]

So do you think perhaps a managers stats should have more effect on how your team performs in International games than it currently seems?

[Schotsmannetje]

That's a very good question. I don't really know much about how FM deals with international football and how big the influence is the manager has on an international side. But I would agree with your own assessment that the performance of a national team should be related to the kind of media attention it gets and how the national manager deals with things. In my opinion the job of a national manager is completely different to that of a club manager.

In Holland we have the philosophy that when players are with the national team, they should be relaxed and the national manager should give them the opportunity to get away from the stress of life at the club for a while. I read an interview with Rio Ferdinand last week and he said that the big difference between Holland and England is that the Holland squad at the WC in Brazil got a lot of time off for themselves. He actually met the Holland squad at a pub in Rio de Janeiro at 10pm and was completely stunned. But in his opinion, it was why they were able to become third at the World Cup. They were able to relax, be themselves and still perform. In contrast to the England team, who had an extremely strict schedule and had to go through a lot of harsh training schedules (his words, not mine).

I'm not sure if FM takes that into account, but in my opinion being a national manager should require different stats than being a club manager. I also think that players should have seperate form and morale for club and country, maybe also influenced by how the national manager handles things.

Also take a look at Louis van Gaal. As national coach for Holland he was very positive, relaxed, reassuring, almost like a father figure. But as a club manager he is extremely strict, always stressing the importance of discipline and professionalism, always demanding 110% and always looking for conflicts with the press. He completely understands that being a national manager requires totally different methods than being a club manager.

[ManagerFootball]

That's a very good question. I don't really know much about how FM deals with international football and how big the influence is the manager has on an international side. But I would agree with your own assessment that the performance of a national team should be related to the kind of media attention it gets and how the national manager deals with things. In my opinion the job of a national manager is completely different to that of a club manager.

In Holland we have the philosophy that when players are with the national team, they should be relaxed and the national manager should give them the opportunity to get away from the stress of life at the club for a while. I read an interview with Rio Ferdinand last week and he said that the big difference between Holland and England is that the Holland squad at the WC in Brazil got a lot of time off for themselves. He actually met the Holland squad at a pub in Rio de Janeiro at 10pm and was completely stunned. But in his opinion, it was why they were able to become third at the World Cup. They were able to relax, be themselves and still perform. In contrast to the England team, who had an extremely strict schedule and had to go through a lot of harsh training schedules (his words, not mine).

I'm not sure if FM takes that into account, but in my opinion being a national manager should require different stats than being a club manager. I also think that players should have seperate form and morale for club and country, maybe also influenced by how the national manager handles things.

Also take a look at Louis van Gaal. As national coach for Holland he was very positive, relaxed, reassuring, almost like a father figure. But as a club manager he is extremely strict, always stressing the importance of discipline and professionalism, always demanding 110% and always looking for conflicts with the press. He completely understands that being a national manager requires totally different methods than being a club manager.

Great stuff man.

Do you think then it could be a good idea if during International tournaments you can as manager prepare a intense diary schedule. For example, You could impose a ban of Wives and Girlfriends or you could assign 'Family Day', 'Free Evening', 'Extra Training Session', 'Sight-Seeing Day (as a group)' to the diary and elements kind of like that?

[Schotsmannetje]

Well I haven't been a national manager in FM in ages, but from what I remember I've always thought that working as a national manager in FM could be a lot more detailed, especially during international tournaments.

[Chinook2000]

So have we concluded the researchers are to blame for over rating english talent? If so should they not be replaced as this has been an issue for at least ten years.

Your welcome to Volunteer yourself.

[michael25]

I voted no. I've followed the discussion to the point where it exploded on the first page, so I know the background of this suggestion. At some point, a player can perform badly in the national team compared to his performance on club level. Is this due to adaptability? Not entirely sure. It could be that the player dislikes some teammates, the manager, the tactic/his role, multiple elements can be taken into account, on top of the attributes already in the game. I think the main problem is: how are you going to measure a players' IA? How will it change over time? I think there are already enough attributes, implementing another wouldn't be the way I would like to see the game progress.

However, I do completely agree that international management needs an overhaul. I saw some pretty good suggestions: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/398183-Football-Manager-2015-Features-Video-Official-Feedback-Thread?p=9880280&viewfull=1#post9880280 http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/398183-Football-Manager-2015-Features-Video-Official-Feedback-Thread?p=9880399&viewfull=1#post9880399

Adding a psychologist just seems to be a bit too much, I mean come on.

[Xavessi]

I think it is a bad idea and unnecessary.

It is unnecessary because players already have a wide range of abilities which can translate into how they perform at higher levels.

It is a bad idea because it cripples a whole player's career at international level and makes it 'gamey'. Managers at international level will quickly identify players who have bad international stats and condemn them never to play for their country.

I don't think it a good road to go down.

[Smurf]

How do we replicate that in the game? Do we link Media Pressure to International performances? How do we do it man?

So we are kind of concluding that media pressure should be linked to performances in some way? So each federation will need a media handling/pressure stat? How would we do it?

I'd imagine it would be linked to the National Team as a whole, as opposed to individual players.

England's media handling stat for the National Squad would be poor, say 4/10.

There could be also additional pressure from the media on England to perform well, causing "PR" unrest amongst players, affects morale and pushes the performance in tournaments down.

With a bit of research some relation between media and international squads could be affirmed.

Along with this, the likes of Spain who won freaking everything over the last few years, their media pressure increases with each success, and eventually leads to a downfall on the international stage.

Spain - suffer under media pressure (expect to win tournaments)

England - media pressure (expect to win tournaments)

Italy - not so much as they are only expected to do well by media

Germany - perform well under media pressure

etc.

Okay, fine. Let's imagine it's 2009 and look at Spain's WC track record over the same period:

1962: Group Stage

1966: Group Stage

1970: DNQ

1974: DNQ

1978: Group Stage

1982: 2nd Group Stage

1986: QF

1990: Last 16

1994: QF

1998: Group Stage

2002: QF

2006: Last 16

We know now that they went on to win in 2010 with a very talented squad, but they had always been considered bottlers and underachievers before this. Should SI have programmed that in? No, of course not - they won the previous Euros. WC records in earlier years are no real indiction of how a team will fare.

Touché.

However, if you replicated my full post and substituted then England players for Spain players circa 2009 you'd get my point.

I did say England have some up and coming players. But the point is that a lot of them are playing for non-champions league clubs, or not playing for top clubs in their country.

Whereas, if you circle back too 2006/08 Spain Squads, you'll see they were in a similar situation to England, the only difference is that they had top youth talent playing abroad.

[Koki]

I recognise the compassion you have for your idea but I voted 'no' because it is already the case that players don't perform the same for club and nation, simply because of the different teammates and different tactics. I also think this idea is already incorporated in the 'big matches' hidden attribute. I believe the reason why England wins championships in the game regularly is simply because the players are overpowered. If they have 9 non-English team mates, it doesn't show but if there are 11 overpowered players on the pitch, it is only natural that they will outperform their real life counterparts. That's not an accusation of the researchers. I believe it is only natural to think highly of your 'own' players. Neither am I saying that every single one is massively overrated but if you have 11 players on the pitch it adds up.

On a different note: You might want to read Soccernomics to find out that England is not really underachieving in RL but simply that expectations are too high for a country with that amount of inhabitants etc. It's really interesting. The book also speculates on so-called knowledge networks which means connections to other countries. One reason why the Netherlands seem to overachieve with such a small population is that they have their coaches all over the world, are influenced by many neighbouring countries and so on while the UK is fairly isolated.

[Smurf]

That's the point though.

We all know that England have 11 great outfield players, world class in their own right.

In reality - they don't perform well at tournaments.

In FM they perform too well at tournaments.

The game basically takes their current stats and gels the team according to this alone. It's not taking into account

Media pressure affecting morale

Current manger

Tactics (players being used to new tactics)

Players international professionalism

The point is that they play too well in FM.

All that's being asked here is to introduce some sort of additional stat that can be flexible enough to allow the team to perform at the level they perform at internationally, which is below or above the level they play at at club level.

[HUNT3R]

ManagerFootball, you'll get more support for an idea like this if you can actually pinpoint what the problem is. It's much easier to offer suggestions or alternatives of how this could be implemented into the game then.

[Matshit]

We all know that England have 11 great outfield players, world class in their own right.

Do we?

On a player by player basis, not taking into account anything else then the players real world CA. How high would you rank the best English team? I would put them in around number 10. And that is around where they have performed in the last years.

[forameuss]

We all know that England have 11 great outfield players, world class in their own right.

Wait...haud' on...was this tongue in cheek? I really hope so. England don't really have any World Class players. Rooney might've been at one point, but certainly isn't now. Cole probably was. Terry maybe. No-one now though, by a long stretch.

[Smurf]

See my post above that relates to the questions - I listed out squad members etc.

[forameuss]

See my post above that relates to the questions - I listed out squad members etc.

Might be me being dense, but all I saw was a list of players who had experience in continental competitions, not a list of World Class players.

[Schotsmannetje]

You're midfield is very, very young. But I do believe that they have wonderful potential. Better than any young prospects we Dutch have at the moment. And I'm counting 'wingers' like Sterling and Townsend as midfielders for convenience' sake. Bar Rooney, you lack decent international experience in all three lines (def/mid/attack).

I agree with Gary Linekers comments from yesterday that you should play the best possible players for the U21 EC the coming summer. Should be good for their development.

[ManagerFootball]

ManagerFootball, you'll get more support for an idea like this if you can actually pinpoint what the problem is. It's much easier to offer suggestions or alternatives of how this could be implemented into the game then.

Eugene Tyson sums it up.

That's the point though.

We all know that England have 11 great outfield players, world class in their own right.

In reality - they don't perform well at tournaments.

In FM they perform too well at tournaments.

The game basically takes their current stats and gels the team according to this alone. It's not taking into account

Media pressure affecting morale

Current manger

Tactics (players being used to new tactics)

Players international professionalism

Of course world class in their own right is debatable, but the point is still pretty clear. This debate has made it clear IA stat is a no go, but mixture of better Media Pressure system, Current Manager Abilities having more effect and cultural tactics could be the way forward.

Either that or the researchers need to stop over rating english talent. England have been way too strong since FM2005. It needs a remedy and if that includes beefing up and making the International module a lot more better then its all good.

[jumbohotdog]

Eugene Tyson sums it up.

Of course world class in their own right is debatable, but the point is still pretty clear. This debate has made it clear IA stat is a no go, but mixture of better Media Pressure system, Current Manager Abilities having more effect and cultural tactics could be the way forward.

Either that or the researchers need to stop over rating english talent. England have been way too strong since FM2005. It needs a remedy and if that includes beefing up and making the International module a lot more better then its all good.

I don't think that its right to nerf one country just because they win too much on a save.

[ManagerFootball]

I don't think that its right to nerf one country just because they win too much on a save.

I supposed you dont have issues with Wales and Scotland qualifying for successive European Championships and World cups either. No one is actually talking about nerfing anything. What we are talking about is revamping the international module so it represents International football better than it has done since it was first introduced. I'm not the only to to feel like it was an after thought. Its lacked attention and needs some love.

If we were talking about Crystal Palace consistently finishing in the top 3 I'm sure you would have an issue with that, and might suggest their stats be lowered.

[jumbohotdog]

IMO international football in real life is a cycle. All dominant teams grow old. But in Fm when the real players are gone it will also be about the countries loaded. For example If I just loaded the

English leagues most probably England will dominate that game world

[pearcey_90]

Don't try to invent something which simply has nothing to do with real life. England's problem is not that players are not "adaptable". England's problem is two-fold: 1) crappy national team managers 2) players are not so good

Not just England. Have people like Lewondowski for Poland (smashes them in on FM for Poland) but IRL struggles hard as he never plays at the same performance level as he does at club level. Benzema would be another one until recently. He went on a ridiculous dry spell for France for someone of his ability.

[ManagerFootball]

IMO international football in real life is a cycle. All dominant teams grow old. But in Fm when the real players are gone it will also be about the countries loaded. For example If I just loaded the

English leagues most probably England will dominate that game world

People are well aware the more leagues you have active the better the simulation. Still does not explain english dominance when I have french, english, german and spanish leagues active and fully playable. Statistically, historically and rightly Germany and Spain should dominate before england.

[Schotsmannetje]

There are plenty of examples. Clarence Seedorf won 4 Champions Leagues and god knows how many other titles with his clubs, but never impressed for Holland. Even Van Persies performances for Holland have raised many doubts, even though he broke the goalscoring record. Iirc Mark van Bommel wasn't even selected for Holland when he won the Champions League with Barcelona as a first team player. Ruud van Nistelrooy never really impressed for Holland. Raul never impressed for Spain either. And I'm sure that there are many other examples. Almost the entire squad of France the past 8 years or so for example. Some players just don't really gel into the national side, or have too much pressure on their shoulders. Some national teams just have a very poor morale and atmosphere in their squad. Take Belgium for example, who in the past have had a lot of conflicts due to language and culture differences. And some national teams just have bad manager.

[Jack Rudd]

Raul never impressed for Spain either.

I hate to introduce facts into this discussion, but Raul actually had a better strike rate for Spain than he did for Real Madrid.

[Schotsmannetje]

Yeah and Van Persie has scored the most goals for Holland in the entire history of the team, but other than that his performances have hardly been breath taking. Goals don't really say that much. Besides, Raul was dropped by Spain at quite a young age. When he was 28 iirc.

[Matshit]

Just as to prove how I think the game has an English bias, I put together a ranked list of every club in La Liga and Premiership based on youth facilities and youth coaching.

This list isn't a list over what clubs will get you the best youth players, but more a list over what club will be the best for a young player.

Barcelona 38

Man Utd 37

Southampton 37

Chelsea 36

Everton 36

Real Madrid 36

Arsenal 35

Tottenham 34

Man City 31

West Ham 31

Athletic 30

Aston Villa 29

Crystal Palace 29

Espanyol 29

Real Sociedad 29

Atletico 28

Liverpool 28

Levante 27

Sunderland 27

Valencia 27

Villarreal 27

Osasuna 26

Real Betis 26

Sevilla 26

WBA 26

Cardiff 25

Fulham 25

Newcastle 25

Norwich 25

Stoke 25

Rayo 24

Swansea 24

Celta 23

Malaga 23

Valladolid 23

Granada 22

Elche 21

Getafe 20

Hull 17

Almeria 16

What this list indicates is that if you remove Barca, English teams are far superior when it comes to handling youths, and England is the place to be if you want to become a good player. This will in-game mean (more or less) that the English teams get better regens and that famous youth setups such as in Real Sociedad, Valencia, Atletico and Sevilla doesn't give you more quality than Crystal Palace.

[louissiscool]

it just looks like a giant grey square to me?

[Schotsmannetje]

Yeah same here

[HUNT3R]

Guys, the text is wrapped in spoiler tags. Just highlight the text!

[Schotsmannetje]

Ah thanks!

[michael25]

Just as to prove how I think the game has an English bias, I put together a ranked list of every club in La Liga and Premiership based on youth facilities and youth coaching.

This list isn't a list over what clubs will get you the best youth players, but more a list over what club will be the best for a young player.

Barcelona 38

Man Utd 37

Southampton 37

Chelsea 36

Everton 36

Real Madrid 36

Arsenal 35

Tottenham 34

Man City 31

West Ham 31

Athletic 30

Aston Villa 29

Crystal Palace 29

Espanyol 29

Real Sociedad 29

Atletico 28

Liverpool 28

Levante 27

Sunderland 27

Valencia 27

Villarreal 27

Osasuna 26

Real Betis 26

Sevilla 26

WBA 26

Cardiff 25

Fulham 25

Newcastle 25

Norwich 25

Stoke 25

Rayo 24

Swansea 24

Celta 23

Malaga 23

Valladolid 23

Granada 22

Elche 21

Getafe 20

Hull 17

Almeria 16

What this list indicates is that if you remove Barca, English teams are far superior when it comes to handling youths, and England is the place to be if you want to become a good player. This will in-game mean (more or less) that the English teams get better regens and that famous youth setups such as in Real Sociedad, Valencia, Atletico and Sevilla doesn't give you more quality than Crystal Palace.

I think the list is in some points understandable, Barcelona is indeed one of the best in the world, and if you look at the players that broke through at Southampton and some of the other English teams it seems logical. For the English top clubs, it has become a common practice to get the greatest talents at a young age. Just look at the enormous amount of players that Chelsea loans out every year.

I do agree with your argument, though. England is not the place to be for youth players. The English top teams tend to attract a bulk of talented players, but only a select few will make it/be given a chance. This might change when the amount of required home-grown players increases for the CL. Some teams, like Arsenal and Liverpool, have given talents a chance. Manchester United might also go into this direction if there are some talents with potential, as Van Gaal has always been a fan of giving youth a chance. Especially at my team Ajax, where he was very succesful .

Which brings me to a question I would like to ask you, could you tell me how you composed the list? Is it just the combination of youth training and youth scouting? And what is the score of Ajax, while we're at it

[frontier219]

Just remembered this article that I'd been thinking of as soon as I saw this thread. FMScout did 200 run throughs of the world cup. England won 8% of the time. Is this overpowered? Perhaps, but there were quite a few surprise results. I really don't think there's anything wrong with the game on this evidence. http://www.fmscout.com/a-can-fm14-predict-the-wc2014.html

[Matshit]

I think the list is in some points understandable, Barcelona is indeed one of the best in the world, and if you look at the players that broke through at Southampton and some of the other English teams it seems logical. For the English top clubs, it has become a common practice to get the greatest talents at a young age. Just look at the enormous amount of players that Chelsea loans out every year.

I do agree with your argument, though. England is not the place to be for youth players. The English top teams tend to attract a bulk of talented players, but only a select few will make it/be given a chance. This might change when the amount of required home-grown players increases for the CL. Some teams, like Arsenal and Liverpool, have given talents a chance. Manchester United might also go into this direction if there are some talents with potential, as Van Gaal has always been a fan of giving youth a chance. Especially at my team Ajax, where he was very succesful .

Which brings me to a question I would like to ask you, could you tell me how you composed the list? Is it just the combination of youth training and youth scouting? And what is the score of Ajax, while we're at it

Well, first of. I have no problem with Southampton, but the rest of the clubs are great at signing lots of young players, not at doing a lot with them.

A team like Real Sociedad starts on average with 7-8 home grown players every match, and that is after losing Illaramendi and Griezmann in the last two years. Valencia has had all in all 6 former b-side players in the last two national team squads, with only Alba being dubious for being home grown. On average the spanish teams should be much better than the English ones. Any other claims are absurd.

The numbers is added up from youth training and youth coaching.

I can give the numbers from some selected teams as well:

Ajax 39

Sporting 37

Bayern 36

Lyon 36

River 36

Danubio 33

Inter 33

Dortmund 31

Atalanta 30

Schalke 29

So the English teams are looking VERY good, even compared to some of the best in the world from different countries.

[ManagerFootball]

Matshit has highlighted a massive english biased problem here.

Who made it so england are pretty much number 2 in the world at producing/developing young quality talent?

[Schotsmannetje]

Ajax's youth academy has been a little overrated lately in my opinion. Most players that have been really impressive out of their academy were bought at quite an old age, like 17 or 18. Most players that have really been at Ajax since a young age are not the biggest prospects. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they've developed a decent forward in ages.

Which doesn't mean that I don't respect the way they operate and maybe part of it is just bad luck.

[frontier219]

Matshit has highlighted a massive english biased problem here.

Who made it so england are pretty much number 2 in the world at producing/developing young quality talent?

Ajax 39

Barcelona 38

Sporting 37

Man Utd 37

Southampton 37

Bayern 36

Lyon 36

River 36

Chelsea 36

Everton 36

Real Madrid 36

Arsenal 35

Tottenham 34

Danubio 33

Inter 33

Dortmund 31

Man City 31

West Ham 31

Athletic 30

Atlanta 30

So, of the top 20 clubs in the world at producing talent, supposedly, 8 of them are English. And this is a *massive* problem. Firstly, this doesn't mean that all the players coming out of these academies are English - this is a list of the best places for young players to learn their trade. Secondly, with the amount of money PL clubs throw into their youth systems and more importantly, facilities, is this actually unrealistic? Many of the players coming out of these clubs are top, top players - doesn't mean they're English. Also - this is a list of selected teams and PL and La Liga. Is there a more comprehensive list - are there any other clubs with a rating of 30 or over missing from this list?

[BoxToBox]

Just remembered this article that I'd been thinking of as soon as I saw this thread. FMScout did 200 run throughs of the world cup. England won 8% of the time. Is this overpowered? Perhaps, but there were quite a few surprise results. I really don't think there's anything wrong with the game on this evidence. http://www.fmscout.com/a-can-fm14-predict-the-wc2014.html

Spain, so so overpowered. I demand they make Spain rubbish now.

There will be a protest.

[samdiatmh]

Spain, so so overpowered. I demand they make Spain rubbish now.

There will be a protest.

Spain nerfed?!

They FAILED to make the WC14 in my save (finished 2nd in their group and went out to Turkey in the playoffs), how could they possibly be made worse?

[themadsheep2001]

So have we concluded the researchers are to blame for over rating english talent? If so should they not be replaced as this has been an issue for at least ten years.

With respect, you really shouldn't come to such hasty, and in all honestly, ill thought out conclusions over something that is far more complicated than you give credit to.

[frontier219]

Spain nerfed?!

They FAILED to make the WC14 in my save (finished 2nd in their group and went out to Turkey in the playoffs), how could they possibly be made worse?

And therein lies the beauty of the game. Spain may win the most but doesn't stop them from not even qualifying!

[forameuss]

You do know that a club's facilities don't solely contribute to how good players that get produced will be, right? Nations have youth ratings, and IIRC England are pretty low on that particular chart.