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

[mrdorf]

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.

I've always found that if I was one-nil up no matter how good I was playing I had to use the guard against complacency team talk. If I tell them how happy I am they fall apart. Happened to me a few times in previous editions. Best time to use happy with performance is if the team is 2 perhaps 3 nil up. It could well be because I always play as Everton but I'm too afraid to deviate from that rule.

[higgins]

Well, let's face it, there's no official literature about anything regarding the game (TT&F apart?), personally I always thought the media side of the game to be boring, repetitive and sometimes a bit random, basically a huge waste of time that don't add anything really valuable to the game.

I don't think team-talks & pre-match press conferences are so vital for the final outcome, surely they could help, or better you could do some damage using these tools, that's the main reason why I often choose to have "neutral team-talks": no bonus, no malus.

I like to win the game tactically, a solid tactic with the right players can override everything else; the rest is poorly implemented, the ME has bugs, but "on the pitch" the game is still fun.

[HUNT3R]

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.

You're still talking about this as if there is only one right teamtalk for every situation and if you say anything else, it'll be completely wrong and the players will turn into morons. Everyone will have different players each with different personalities. There is no "one size fits all" approach. You're the manager. You figure it out. Approach it as if it was a real life situation. Look at the context. Look at the personality of your team. How did they react last time you said what you want to say now? You need to get to know your players and how they react in different situations.

[Coentrao]

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.

If i'm understanding this right, you can actually plan a peak of form like teams do IRL ? I never thought the game had this depth.

So you could like start the season slow with a lot of rotation to ensure the players are strong to finish it? Or push it really hard at the start to try to be safe(if you're a relegation battler for instance) even if your form decreases a lot on the second half of the season..

[wwfan]

If i'm understanding this right, you can actually plan a peak of form like teams do IRL ? I never thought the game had this depth.

So you could like start the season slow with a lot of rotation to ensure the players are strong to finish it? Or push it really hard at the start to try to be safe(if you're a relegation battler for instance) even if your form decreases a lot on the second half of the season..

It's merely trying to match morale, match condition, current fitness and confidence to the fixture list. You generally don't need morale to be super high against average teams, but it is great to have it soaring for big matches. You don't want a player to not have played enough and be short of match condition, but overplaying him makes him jaded. Likewise, players will be tired if they play too many matches close together, especially if they are tough games. Nerves and complacency won't be a problem early in a streak, but will be late in one. Bad weather and multiple fixtures will cause tiredness and injury, so think about how to manage any of those periods.

When managing a relegation contender, I've always focused my season around performing well in mini-streaks against lower half of the table teams. That usually means your whole season is based around how well you do over two 6-week periods or four 3-week periods, depending how the fixture list breaks up. Any results outside those windows are bonuses.

When managing a title contender, my whole focus is on having my best eleven fit and confident for the 6-8 league matches against my rivals and for the big end of season European games. That results in a different rotation pattern. The exact order of fixtures can also result in a very different pre-season preparation schedule.

[higgins]

It's merely trying to match morale, match condition, current fitness and confidence to the fixture list. You generally don't need morale to be super high against average teams, but it is great to have it soaring for big matches. You don't want a player to not have played enough and be short of match condition, but overplaying him makes him jaded. Likewise, players will be tired if they play too many matches close together, especially if they are tough games. Nerves and complacency won't be a problem early in a streak, but will be late in one. Bad weather and multiple fixtures will cause tiredness and injury, so think about how to manage any of those periods.

When managing a relegation contender, I've always focused my season around performing well in mini-streaks against lower half of the table teams. That usually means your whole season is based around how well you do over two 6-week periods or four 3-week periods, depending how the fixture list breaks up. Any results outside those windows are bonuses.

When managing a title contender, my whole focus is on having my best eleven fit and confident for the 6-8 league matches against my rivals and for the big end of season European games. That results in a different rotation pattern. The exact order of fixtures can also result in a very different pre-season preparation schedule.

After the last patch players tend to overreact to lost games, if I'm a relegation battler my players morale shouldn't plummet every time we lose vs. a far superior opponent, that's truly unrealistic and not needed.

It's difficult, probably too difficult, to stop a confidence crisis if you're on a losing streak, even if you're supposed to be a weak team.

[wwfan]

After the last patch players tend to overreact to lost games, if I'm a relegation battler my players morale shouldn't plummet every time we lose vs. a far superior opponent, that's truly unrealistic and not needed.

It's difficult, probably too difficult, to stop a confidence crisis if you're on a losing streak, even if you're supposed to be a weak team.

That doesn't happen to me. I find morale drops to be very slight. However, I know people have complained they are large in GD. It is either a bug that is affecting some and not others, which is possible and has happened before, or it is something you are / aren't doing that is resulting in this.

Remember that building expectations in the media and team talks prior to a match you then lose will result in a heavier drop in morale than if you'd played things down beforehand. However, playing things down can be a risky strategy, as determination or confidence levels might drop.

[G.A.M.E]

You're still talking about this as if there is only one right teamtalk for every situation and if you say anything else, it'll be completely wrong and the players will turn into morons. Everyone will have different players each with different personalities. There is no "one size fits all" approach. You're the manager. You figure it out. Approach it as if it was a real life situation. Look at the context. Look at the personality of your team. How did they react last time you said what you want to say now? You need to get to know your players and how they react in different situations.

I'm looking at it logically. There has to be an optimal outcome, otherwise there's no point in having a bunch of choices which all amount to the same thing.

And there is, even if it doesn't always affect everyone across the board. I've found at half-time, when managing a very determined team, telling players rated anything less than 7.1 (if they're not winning by at least 2 goals) that "I'm not happy with that performance" will get them fired-up or motivated. That reaction occurs in the majority of the squad. I then go through each player individually and try to further push for a good reaction (if they've not reacted or if players with good ratings have reacted badly). That's the best outcome I can hope for from the team talk I give. It's no different to telling the team "I am happy with your performance" after winning a game and everyone being 'delighted'.

The dynamics are the same in all other areas using this system. There's something you can say to severely affect the 'mood' of a conversation, you just need to find the tone and choice to do it.

The best way to prove the above is, next time you use an interaction module, say the absolute worst thing you can and watch the reaction. If you can severely affect the 'mood' in a negative way, using what you know is the worst option you could have, then you should understand that there'll be a polar opposite reaction you could have created.

[Bullion22]

When making this argument you should have supplied some data like having 20 saves at the same point in the game, just before a press conference before a game, and have 10 of those 20 saves with best possible press conference and team talks and the other 10 with the worst possible. See if there is any difference in on field performance and morale. You would have to try and minimise inconsistencies in the data by making sure you have the same tactical setup and even subs if possible. 10 saves might not be a big enough sample.

[HUNT3R]

I'm looking at it logically. There has to be an optimal outcome, otherwise there's no point in having a bunch of choices which all amount to the same thing.

And there is, even if it doesn't always affect everyone across the board. I've found at half-time, when managing a very determined team, telling players rated anything less than 7.1 (if they're not winning by at least 2 goals) that "I'm not happy with that performance" will get them fired-up or motivated. That reaction occurs in the majority of the squad. I then go through each player individually and try to further push for a good reaction (if they've not reacted or if players with good ratings have reacted badly). That's the best outcome I can hope for from the team talk I give. It's no different to telling the team "I am happy with your performance" after winning a game and everyone being 'delighted'.

The dynamics are the same in all other areas using this system. There's something you can say to severely affect the 'mood' of a conversation, you just need to find the tone and choice to do it.

The best way to prove the above is, next time you use an interaction module, say the absolute worst thing you can and watch the reaction. If you can severely affect the 'mood' in a negative way, using what you know is the worst option you could have, then you should understand that there'll be a polar opposite reaction you could have created.

Of course. There are a lot of other talks that fall somewhere in between those extremes too. If everyone thought about it before giving a talk, we'd have a lot less complaining about team talks and morale in general.

It's obviously a little trickier when you have differing personalities like Balotelli and Pirlo in your team, but it's still very hard to mess up a talk so badly that it's the reason you lose 3-4 after being up 3-0 for example.

I had a game once where I was up 2-0 against a mid table team. We were league leaders at the time. Overall we played well and I had no problems at all. I was deep in thought about something else and instead of saying Im pleased with the performance, I clicked on "NOT pleased" by mistake. I had completely missed the "not" in that sentence. All 11 guys were "angered and confused" and it's only normal that they would be. When the 2nd half started a few guys were already "playing nervously". I made two changes to try and get two nervous players off the field and changed my tactics to play a little safer. We won 3-0.

[G.A.M.E]

When making this argument you should have supplied some data like having 20 saves at the same point in the game, just before a press conference before a game, and have 10 of those 20 saves with best possible press conference and team talks and the other 10 with the worst possible. See if there is any difference in on field performance and morale. You would have to try and minimise inconsistencies in the data by making sure you have the same tactical setup and even subs if possible. 10 saves might not be a big enough sample.

I probably could have done a lot more but, I wrote this in the heat of the moment. I didn't expect resolution to the problem, really; I just wanted to raise the issue and see if it had been a problem for other people.

I've added a link to the first post which explains why the players suddenly took a dip in that game. It wasn't the pre-match preparation that was the issue, it was something that I didn't know existed in the game (which is why I thought it was a pre-match flaw).

Of course. There are a lot of other talks that fall somewhere in between those extremes too. If everyone thought about it before giving a talk, we'd have a lot less complaining about team talks and morale in general.

It's obviously a little trickier when you have differing personalities like Balotelli and Pirlo in your team, but it's still very hard to mess up a talk so badly that it's the reason you lose 3-4 after being up 3-0 for example.

I had a game once where I was up 2-0 against a mid table team. We were league leaders at the time. Overall we played well and I had no problems at all. I was deep in thought about something else and instead of saying Im pleased with the performance, I clicked on "NOT pleased" by mistake. I had completely missed the "not" in that sentence. All 11 guys were "angered and confused" and it's only normal that they would be. When the 2nd half started a few guys were already "playing nervously". I made two changes to try and get two nervous players off the field and changed my tactics to play a little safer. We won 3-0.

I myself, am competent with the interaction; I think most people will be. However, it would be good to know the effects of the tone system; as this is a recent addition to the game and it's not very clear as to how varied the degrees of each tone are. Using your intellect you can ascertain which buttons not to press, but it's difficult to know which button to press from the remaining choices. There are six tones, I believe, and whilst you may know what you want to say, it's still a lottery when it comes to how you say it. It annoys me when I say something and it has no effect, at all, and I think I'd be able to make a more informed choice (even if I still got it wrong) if I knew the impact each tone had.

In my opinion, as game-makers, SIG fundamentally fail to provide enough education on how things work. There should be something to give you an insight as to how you can best utilise the game's features. It's all well and good saying "pick it up and learn it" but there's plenty of people who won't be able to do that. You don't unwrap flat-pack furniture and expect to have to put it up without instruction –– even if you can use your intelligence to put it together –– largely because there'll be pieces that you're not entirely confident go together and you'd want clarification that you're doing the right thing. That's my point.

[Cleon]

In my opinion, as game-makers, SIG fundamentally fail to provide enough education on how things work. There should be something to give you an insight as to how you can best utilise the game's features. It's all well and good saying "pick it up and learn it" but there's plenty of people who won't be able to do that. You don't unwrap flat-pack furniture and expect to have to put it up without instruction –– even if you can use your intelligence to put it together –– largely because there'll be pieces that you're not entirely confident go together and you'd want clarification that you're doing the right thing. That's my point.

Documentation as always been an issue so I agree strongly with you here. The online manual is useful but it's still fairly basic.

[HUNT3R]

I myself, am competent with the interaction; I think most people will be. However, it would be good to know the effects of the tone system; as this is a recent addition to the game and it's not very clear as to how varied the degrees of each tone are. Using your intellect you can ascertain which buttons not to press, but it's difficult to know which button to press from the remaining choices. There are six tones, I believe, and whilst you may know what you want to say, it's still a lottery when it comes to how you say it. It annoys me when I say something and it has no effect, at all, and I think I'd be able to make a more informed choice (even if I still got it wrong) if I knew the impact each tone had.

In my opinion, as game-makers, SIG fundamentally fail to provide enough education on how things work. There should be something to give you an insight as to how you can best utilise the game's features. It's all well and good saying "pick it up and learn it" but there's plenty of people who won't be able to do that. You don't unwrap flat-pack furniture and expect to have to put it up without instruction –– even if you can use your intelligence to put it together –– largely because there'll be pieces that you're not entirely confident go together and you'd want clarification that you're doing the right thing. That's my point.

It's not impossible. As an example, I've noticed that sometimes it's better to cautiously say you're pleased with the team's performance rather than using a passionate tone. How do I know this? My players started misplacing passes and defending badly. Not because they're idiots or forgot how to play football (as I see on these forums often), but because I praised them too much and they lost concentration and "looked complacent". There are clues.

Do I know the clear difference between every tone? No.

That said, I'd love a clear, well laid out manual. It will probably be nightmare to compile though. There are so many variables. How different player personalities react with different team talks, with different tones. What effect different team talks and different tones have and how to apply all of that in each context possible. I wouldn't hold my breath on something like that

[G.A.M.E]

It's not impossible. As an example, I've noticed that sometimes it's better to cautiously say you're pleased with the team's performance rather than using a passionate tone. How do I know this? My players started misplacing passes and defending badly. Not because they're idiots or forgot how to play football (as I see on these forums often), but because I praised them too much and they lost concentration and "looked complacent". There are clues.

Do I know the clear difference between every tone? No.

That said, I'd love a clear, well laid out manual. It will probably be nightmare to compile though. There are so many variables. How different player personalities react with different team talks, with different tones. What effect different team talks and different tones have and how to apply all of that in each context possible. I wouldn't hold my breath on something like that

You can't argue with what I'm saying and contradict yourself in the same post.

You, like myself, have discovered something about the interaction module by using it and finding out that one of the options doesn't work well in certain circumstances. As you say, that's not impossible to do. However, you also say you want a clear manual because there are so many variables to the way team talks work, what effects different team talks and tones have, and how to apply all of that in each possible context. That's exactly what I've said to you; there needs to be something to outline how things work, because solely using logic and experimentation, firstly, doesn't give you all the answers, and secondly, is a real shortcoming of the gaming company that is not providing all the documentation required to properly use the game.

If you cannot work out all the variables using logic, as you were suggesting before, how can you expect other people to do that? Kids play this game, are we expecting children to prevail in this situation? It's crazy.

[HUNT3R]

I didn't argue with what you're saying. Everyone would like a manual that explains everything. All I'm saying is that we're not lost without it.

[serek]

I ALWAYS leave press conferences to ass man. ALWAYS. Most of the time he says some stupid things, like expecting a loss vs a weaker side (what the hell, Dowhan!?). The effect on the final score? None whatsoever. And team talks are reasonably easy to "get right" in FM12 to be honest.. but then again, sometimes I f**k up (like forget to do any teamtalks at all when game begins lol), and it doesn't seem to have much effect...

[G.A.M.E]

I didn't argue with what you're saying. Everyone would like a manual that explains everything. All I'm saying is that we're not lost without it.

Of course you're arguing with what I'm saying. I'm saying we need to have all the information required to execute team talks [and such] with certainty. You're saying you'd like it but we don't need it.

We are lost without it; we don't have all the answers. There comes a point when you're giving a team talk to a personality type you've not instructed before and you don't know how to best to approach that; you might have an idea, but you don't know. Should you know? Yes. Should you know exactly what to say? No. There's a difference. I'm not asking for help, I'm asking to be informed. I don't want them to do this part of the game for me, I'd just like to know how to do it myself without guess work and experimentation.

To be honest, I don't know why you're opposed to the idea. It doesn't lower the ease of the team talks, it just gives you the ability to make an informed choice when selecting one of the many options available to you.

I ALWAYS leave press conferences to ass man. ALWAYS. Most of the time he says some stupid things, like expecting a loss vs a weaker side (what the hell, Dowhan!?). The effect on the final score? None whatsoever. And team talks are reasonably easy to "get right" in FM12 to be honest.. but then again, sometimes I f**k up (like forget to do any teamtalks at all when game begins lol), and it doesn't seem to have much effect...

This was all covered in the first line of the first post. Read the link that's posted there and you'll see why this point is now irrelevant.

[Aaust]

This is a fascinating thread about an issue that I think is far too little understood. I have to say the motivational aspect of the game is something I have actually come to quite enjoy -- but I find it much more puzzling this year, due to the tones system. I feel I have a pretty good hang of when to increase and when to decrase pressure. What I don't understand, however, is how all this relate to the tones. What is their actual aim and purpose? I still haven't seen any particularly enlightening posts or guides about this issue. Does anyone of you know of any such, or do you have any input?

[Karnage94]

With regards to the tones for team talks I'm no expert but I think I have got the hang of it. I feel you have to try and put yourself in that dressing room and you have to judge for yourself what kind of talk you need to give. One of my now go to talks at the end of a game where I won against a weaker team is to use a Cautious tone and Well Done or I'm happy with that performance. I find that using that, you are trying to increase morale and keep your players happy, but you don't want to make them complacent at the same time so you can't give the impression that you're delighted.

Really you have to judge it on a game to game and half to half basis and use the tones that you find to be right for your team. I have a game next up against title rivals Valencia. I know that the 4-4-2 that they play at home is very lively and quick. A very dangerous outfit and thankfully I have not lost in the last 4 games against them. But this is a key game in the season and I really need to get the maximum out of every player as I intend to try and press them high up the pitch and not let them play their game. So what I will probably do is give a team talk of Passionate - For the fans or maybe something less pressuring as I'm away from home because I want the players to be up for the challenge and to be a determined bunch.

However if I was more of an underdog then I would more than likely use a Calm - No Pressure talk. The reason being is that if I was the underdog and I would have to try and contain the opposition, I would want to relieve the pressure and a calm talk I feel is the best at doing that. It gets the players to calm down. Passionate or Assertive I wouldn't use in this case as I don't want to put pressure on my team and I wouldn't use Cautious as I feel that would give the impression that I don't believe they can do the job.

Sometimes it's not always what you say but it's how you say it, just be aware of what you want from your team and that should make the team talks a bit easier

[Aaust]

Thanks for the reply!

1) I agree with many of your observations. The (cautious) "well done"-talk is something I also use sometimes after winning against a much weaker opponent (like a division below, or more). Normally, however, I find I use a very small range of talks.

I'm currently playing as Cagliari, doing very well, as I am in 1st place (1 pt ahead of Milan in 2nd) with only 6 games left of my first season. My defeault team talk, especially during the first half of the season, is (calm) "show me what you can do!". However, as the season goes on and my team continues to overachieve, I feel the need to take off pressure, particularly against the weaker sides and mid-table teams where we are huge favourites without really having more quality. In these cases I use (calm) "good luck", and, in extreme cases (calm) "no pressure".

However, I very rarely feel comfortable with varying from this approach and I think probably about 95% of my interventions (in team talks, private chats, etc) is made in the calm tone.

2) I wonder if the kind of tone you deliver the majority of your team talks etc. in sets a kind of emotional tone for the squad in general? What I mean is that if you use a very wide register of tones (aggressive, passionate, reluctant) will the squad become more emotionally volatile, with, perhaps, a tendency to suffer inexplicable collapses as well as pulling off some unlikely upsets? On the other hand, a more even approach (calm) might produce a less spectacular but more controlled mentality among the squad.

Could there be anything in this at all?

[wwfan]

I've recently had an interesting experience in relation to this thread. My tennis team recently played in a play-off style final. We had won the league stage, which gives you some advantages in the play-offs for the title. However, you still have to win the play-offs to be crowned champions.

My team was comfortably the best team in the league. We'd remained unbeaten all season (P14, W12, D2, L0), finishing top by some distance. We'd steamrollered our opposition in the semi-final and everyone was playing well in match practice. We'd had two competitive matches against the team we were playing in the final, but had won them both and generally been in control throughout.

Once we got started in the final, it became immediately obvious we we in a bit of trouble. The opposition, having nothing to lose, were fired up and playing beautifully. In contrast, our feet were stuck to the ground and we were making simple mistakes. The first quarter of the match went badly and each pair quickly went a set down.

The only reason we were struggling was us. We knew we were technically better, player for player, than the opposition. The only way we could lose the match was if we played badly. Even playing averagely would be enough. Knowing that was the case was a motivational disaster. We were playing nervously and horribly. Something had to change and quickly, or the match was going to get away from us.

We had some quick discussions about how to approach the remaining 3/4 of the match. The whole focus was on trying to work out a way to psyche each other up so we could forget about the nerves. Things like keeping body language positive, fist pumps and vocals for good shots, bouncing up and down between points to get your feet working, hand taps, constant encouragement etc, etc. The shift happened slowly and required a little bit of luck on a few key points, but once we began to get on top, the nerves left us, we opened up and took control. Eventually, their confidence and technique deserted them and we began to take them apart. My last set, especially, was a one sided romp. We ended up winning the match more comfortably than we had either of the league fixtures.

We focused on motivation rather than tactics, because we knew if we played well we'd beat them through technical advantage. However, the more focused approach resulted in my partner playing possibly the most tactical game I've seen him play (he's technically fantastically talented and a superb athlete, but, maybe not surprisingly, I read the game better than he does). He took it upon himself to target certain parts of the court and opposition shots, whereas he usually just relies on sheer power and foot speed. I actually played a far less tactical game than I usually would and focused instead on generating adrenaline, which is unusual for me. I tend to stay very calm and controlled and don't show much emotion, whereas he gets hyper.

Although it is a different sport, the logic is the same. Pressure disrupts performance. Switching tactics or motivational management can overcome the disruption. You just have to have the discipline and thought processes to do it.

Another example, although focusing on the massive overperformance of the opposition. In my early 20s, I played a couple of seasons with one of the top juniors in the UK. Our first competitive match together was against two lower ranked juniors who were incredibly psyched up at playing their first match in the top division and desperate to beat my locally well-known partner. They went for everything and made pretty much everything they went for. In contrast, we were struggling to time the ball on their club surface, which was quicker than the surface we practised on. After we lost the first set 7-5 and he was visibly frustrated, I asked him if he thought they were capable of beating him if he played his normal game. He said that he didn't think so. We moved into defensive mode, basically just focusing on living with them in the assumption that they'd crack once the victory line was in sight. Sure enough, we won the second set on a tie-breaker, then the last 6-0 as they disintegrated. By the end, we were the guys hitting winners left, right and centre, whereas earlier we were just focusing on making them hit just one extra shot. In contrast, they didn't have the capability of doing that, meaning once they'd burned out, we were going to run away with it.

This was a tactical victory rather than a motivational one. Neither my partner nor myself were particularly defensive players, but we did what was needed to get ourselves in a winning position, then opened up. We went on to have a fantastic season, winning a few trophies and having an 80%+ win record across the county. Had we lost that first match, the whole season might have been different. The confidence and trust it gave us was enormous. We learnt that I should make the tactical calls and he should adapt his amazing talent to my strategic evaluation (I don't have enough talent to adapt like he could and he was no tactician). We actually only lost one three set match all season. Every other time we were good enough to win one set, we won the match.

He eventually went on to take a set off Marat Safin, before a knee injury put an end to his chances of making a career out of tennis (he's still a **** hot club player though). He is still kind enough to tell me that the tactical advice I used to give him was as good as anything he got on the US College circuit and that he never found a partner as enjoyable to play with as me, although I think he's probably just being kind to an ageing tennis player whose shoulder has gone and knees are going.

I believe everyone who has played sport at that kind of level can appreciate the different amounts of self-belief, confidence, complacency, nervousness, psyche, clearheadedness (or lack of) and determination not to lose that can affect everyday performance and how streaks of form interrelate with all the above. I think FM simulates it pretty well, although is arguably lacking in clarity when doing so. Because I have always thought about sport this way, I automatically picked up on how FM simulated it, even prior to discussing technicalities with Paul. I'd never really considered the lack of clarity being so problematic, which was why I've never even thought of writing an explicit post about it.

[G.A.M.E]

I've recently had an interesting experience in relation to this thread. My tennis team recently played in a play-off style final. We had won the league stage, which gives you some advantages in the play-offs for the title. However, you still have to win the play-offs to be crowned champions.

My team was comfortably the best team in the league. We'd remained unbeaten all season (P14, W12, D2, L0), finishing top by some distance. We'd steamrollered our opposition in the semi-final and everyone was playing well in match practice. We'd had two competitive matches against the team we were playing in the final, but had won them both and generally been in control throughout.

Once we got started in the final, it became immediately obvious we we in a bit of trouble. The opposition, having nothing to lose, were fired up and playing beautifully. In contrast, our feet were stuck to the ground and we were making simple mistakes. The first quarter of the match went badly and each pair quickly went a set down.

The only reason we were struggling was us. We knew we were technically better, player for player, than the opposition. The only way we could lose the match was if we played badly. Even playing averagely would be enough. Knowing that was the case was a motivational disaster. We were playing nervously and horribly. Something had to change and quickly, or the match was going to get away from us.

We had some quick discussions about how to approach the remaining 3/4 of the match. The whole focus was on trying to work out a way to psyche each other up so we could forget about the nerves. Things like keeping body language positive, fist pumps and vocals for good shots, bouncing up and down between points to get your feet working, hand taps, constant encouragement etc, etc. The shift happened slowly and required a little bit of luck on a few key points, but once we began to get on top, the nerves left us, we opened up and took control. Eventually, their confidence and technique deserted them and we began to take them apart. My last set, especially, was a one sided romp. We ended up winning the match more comfortably than we had either of the league fixtures.

We focused on motivation rather than tactics, because we knew if we played well we'd beat them through technical advantage. However, the more focused approach resulted in my partner playing possibly the most tactical game I've seen him play (he's technically fantastically talented and a superb athlete, but, maybe not surprisingly, I read the game better than he does). He took it upon himself to target certain parts of the court and opposition shots, whereas he usually just relies on sheer power and foot speed. I actually played a far less tactical game than I usually would and focused instead on generating adrenaline, which is unusual for me. I tend to stay very calm and controlled and don't show much emotion, whereas he gets hyper.

Although it is a different sport, the logic is the same. Pressure disrupts performance. Switching tactics or motivational management can overcome the disruption. You just have to have the discipline and thought processes to do it.

Another example, although focusing on the massive overperformance of the opposition. In my early 20s, I played a couple of seasons with one of the top juniors in the UK. Our first competitive match together was against two lower ranked juniors who were incredibly psyched up at playing their first match in the top division and desperate to beat my locally well-known partner. They went for everything and made pretty much everything they went for. In contrast, we were struggling to time the ball on their club surface, which was quicker than the surface we practised on. After we lost the first set 7-5 and he was visibly frustrated, I asked him if he thought they were capable of beating him if he played his normal game. He said that he didn't think so. We moved into defensive mode, basically just focusing on living with them in the assumption that they'd crack once the victory line was in sight. Sure enough, we won the second set on a tie-breaker, then the last 6-0 as they disintegrated. By the end, we were the guys hitting winners left, right and centre, whereas earlier we were just focusing on making them hit just one extra shot. In contrast, they didn't have the capability of doing that, meaning once they'd burned out, we were going to run away with it.

This was a tactical victory rather than a motivational one. Neither my partner nor myself were particularly defensive players, but we did what was needed to get ourselves in a winning position, then opened up. We went on to have a fantastic season, winning a few trophies and having an 80%+ win record across the county. Had we lost that first match, the whole season might have been different. The confidence and trust it gave us was enormous. We learnt that I should make the tactical calls and he should adapt his amazing talent to my strategic evaluation (I don't have enough talent to adapt like he could and he was no tactician). We actually only lost one three set match all season. Every other time we were good enough to win one set, we won the match.

He eventually went on to take a set off Marat Safin, before a knee injury put an end to his chances of making a career out of tennis (he's still a **** hot club player though). He is still kind enough to tell me that the tactical advice I used to give him was as good as anything he got on the US College circuit and that he never found a partner as enjoyable to play with as me, although I think he's probably just being kind to an ageing tennis player whose shoulder has gone and knees are going.

I believe everyone who has played sport at that kind of level can appreciate the different amounts of self-belief, confidence, complacency, nervousness, psyche, clearheadedness (or lack of) and determination not to lose that can affect everyday performance and how streaks of form interrelate with all the above. I think FM simulates it pretty well, although is arguably lacking in clarity when doing so. Because I have always thought about sport this way, I automatically picked up on how FM simulated it, even prior to discussing technicalities with Paul. I'd never really considered the lack of clarity being so problematic, which was why I've never even thought of writing an explicit post about it.

I'd not say the problems that occur are due to people failing to grasp how pressure can affect players; the problem is, until this thread, no-one knew that players felt the pressure of maintaining a winning streak or the pressure of going on a losing streak. Obviously, we all know morale is affected by those things and that morale can affect performances; but as far as I was aware, press conferences and team talks were the only things that affected the pressure a player was under. I certainly had no idea that the game was simulating the pressure of good form behind the scenes and that I'd have to factor that into my team talks or press conferences. I always knew to handle the complacency that comes with repeatedly winning, but that's not the same as player's being under too much pressure to perform. In hindsight, I was demanding too much from players in a bid to squash complacency and that was only creating more pressure.

I think it'd be highly beneficial to write-up something outlying things that the average FM player wouldn't know about the mechanics of the game. If you have time at some point, I'll send you some questions and will compile an article based on your responses. If that's something you'd be interested in doing?

[wwfan]

I think it'd be highly beneficial to write-up something outlying things that the average FM player wouldn't know about the mechanics of the game. If you have time at some point, I'll send you some questions and will compile an article based on your responses. If that's something you'd be interested in doing?

More than happy to.

[mrdorf]

That's one of the small problems with the game. There are factors that the average gamer doesn't understand and so are unaware of where problems lie and how to counter-act them or deal with them apropiately. I had know idea about winning streaks and pressure being something to factor in when dealing with moral. I didn't even know that press conferences affected the team until I read it on here. It would be amazing if someone could put in a game guide; not that I want to be told exactly how to play the game but it would be good to know what things can affect the game then from there I can make my own decision on how to approach things.