Why is International Management so much easier than Club Management

[-Ironhide-]

So for example I can win the Euros with England (lol), but then I struggle taking Liverpool to a 9th placed finish in the Prem. So is international management easier then?

[gunner86]

First off, there are some that feel England are somewhat overpowered...

Secondly, from my experience of international management, FM16 has been the hardest for international management in years. I've found the opposite of you, I've been able to lead Derby County to Premier League Glory, but failed to get Portugal out of the Euro 2020 group stage!

[deltablue]

It really isn't easier, not in my experience anyway. With the exception of a World Cup win with Mexico once (which was a real 'How did I manage that?!' moment) I've only ever been successful with the top nations (either on a global or continental level), with a lot of failure in there as well.

[Lenzar]

I don't get why people insist that England are OP.

With the right manager, we'd be a force to be reckoned with. The debate is if that manager exists IRL.

[gunner86]

2 minutes ago, Lenzar said:

I don't get why people insist that England are OP.

With the right manager, we'd be a force to be reckoned with. The debate is if that manager exists IRL.

Just to be clear, I agree with you, I was just stating that England being overpowered is a bone of contention for a lot of people.

On topic though, I wonder if international management is almost a different game to club management. You don't have the morale to worry about to an extent, and the playing field is levelled somewhat in terms of fitness and tactical familiarity.

[-Ironhide-]

2 minutes ago, gunner86 said:

Just to be clear, I agree with you, I was just stating that England being overpowered is a bone of contention for a lot of people.

On topic though, I wonder if international management is almost a different game to club management. You don't have the morale to worry about to an extent, and the playing field is levelled somewhat in terms of fitness and tactical familiarity.

Thats what I mean tbh. At club level great tactics take some time to learn, while a normal tactic works perfectly from almost day 1.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

 

Apples and Oranges really....

 

Club level, you need to learn the tactics, you come up against a variety of tactics, you often play even games, you need to deal with a limited squad, more injuries, pressure, and so on, and regardless of how you've set things up, your nation's league will always be strong (hence, you can usually win in Europe more often than you can at home if you play a one-league set up).

 

International level, most nations will tactically be on the same level (i.e. learning them, not fluid etc), you'll come up against a variety of tactics, most games will be mismatches (depending on the nation you choose, especially in qualifying scenarios), you have a limited squad, but you're often recruiting from an elite group of the 'best', can work around injuries at will, don't generally have to deal with pressure so much (until tournament time) and so on, oh and depending on your setup, few nations will be pushing any quality regens after the first few seasons.

 

 

[-Ironhide-]

2 minutes ago, isignedupfornorealreason said:

 

Apples and Oranges really....

 

Club level, you need to learn the tactics, you come up against a variety of tactics, you often play even games, you need to deal with a limited squad, more injuries, pressure, and so on, and regardless of how you've set things up, your nation's league will always be strong (hence, you can usually win in Europe more often than you can at home if you play a one-league set up).

 

International level, most nations will tactically be on the same level (i.e. learning them, not fluid etc), you'll come up against a variety of tactics, most games will be mismatches (depending on the nation you choose, especially in qualifying scenarios), you have a limited squad, but you're often recruiting from an elite group of the 'best', can work around injuries at will, don't generally have to deal with pressure so much (until tournament time) and so on, oh and depending on your setup, few nations will be pushing any quality regens after the first few seasons.

 

 

Thanks. I was  really beginning to wonder.

[nbthree3]

I was England U-19 manager for a test save for a season and I remember beating tons of teams easily (6-0 or 7-0) with tactics that wouldn't probably work in the Premier League or Championship. Maybe it's because English players are given OP stats, maybe not. But I like international management.

[Apaco]

7 hours ago, Lenzar said:

I don't get why people insist that England are OP.

With the right manager, we'd be a force to be reckoned with. The debate is if that manager exists IRL.

No, the right coach would never make England a force to be reckoned with, because England is far from having players close to being world class. Unfortunately in the db theres lots of far to good english players. English players lack vision, technical skills, flair, passing and dribling skills to succeed in real life and they lack the world class players that could have taken the rest of the players to the top. This is shown in every major tournament when they have to outplay teams they fail where the nations with real world class players do the job.

 

Another point is that the biggest nations (germany, england, spain) has got far to many players on a high level compared to the 11-13 best players from lots of nations. Those nations has god like 4-5 teams matching the best teams of lots of other nations. In real life national team football you see that most top 15 nations in Europe play pretty even matches when meeting each others with few exceptions in top three. In FM the difference between the best 11-14 players is far to big between the nations and that makes it far to easy to win national tournaments with the big nations. If you as an example play with England you will in a few years time have like 50 players better than the best 3 players from Ukraine, Slovakia, Iceland etc.  and with such advantage it will almost be hard not to make it great in national tournaments. 

[gavo01]

I love international management. I love the long breaks in between games and as I don't get too much time to play FM, I can whizz through the years much quicker than club football.

I would never go back to club management if SI could iron out a few of the issues in international management.  

[YOUNGSTEVE]

I have never played international management as there doesn't seem much to do compared to being a club manager.

[Lord Rowell]

On 8/26/2016 at 14:35, Lenzar said:

I don't get why people insist that England are OP.

With the right manager, we'd be a force to be reckoned with. The debate is if that manager exists IRL.

A discussion for another thread but I can't resist...

Eriksson, Capello, when they both came they were considered top of the line managers.

Keegan was considered a good manager, so was McClaren at the time, and Hodgson.

We've had lots of good managers and the first two I mentioned we paid top penny for.

Before success with France, Aime Jacquet's recent career was modest. Rehhagel didn't pull up trees.

I think if we're looking for a common denominator, its not managers.

[Wavelberry]

Also this is the most callow talent pool we've had for some years. 

[warpedpolecat]

I had an absolute nightmare as the manager of the Swiss national team, I think myself and the people of Switzerland are only just getting over it. Half a decade later. 

To be honest though I don't usually bother managing international teams, I just find the international management too boring. 

[Scotland26]

On 8/26/2016 at 14:35, Lenzar said:

I don't get why people insist that England are OP.

With the right manager, we'd be a force to be reckoned with. The debate is if that manager exists IRL.

Hahahahaha.....hahahaha how many managers have you been threw and still won nothing in decades.. Least Scotland can admit we are *****. England are overrated just like in real life