Remove 'injury proneness' from the game?

[BlueHawaiian]

Whilst some players in real life do seem to pick up more injuries than others, having a stat so inclusive as 'injury prone' seems absurd to me. The problem I have with it is that in real life, some players only become injury prone later in their career (Michael Essien for example), and some players previously who have had many spells out through injury manage to go through long periods of times without any (Robin Van Persie played 2 consecutive 38 game Premier League seasons for example).

There is no 'injury proneness' in reality - it is made up of far more complex things, some of which are already taken into account in FM- for example, bravery. It stands to reason that a player considered braver than another would more likely get injured due to putting themselves on the line more. Technique is another - if a player performs the same thing over and over again but has poor technique, they are more likely to injure themselves (not a football example, but tennis players like Mats Wilander have had their career cut short due to serving techniques which end up damaging themselves). Players with poor natural fitness, left on in games they are tired in, is another factor in how often a player would be injured, as well as physical attributes like strength (weaker players may get knocked off the ball more, and may suffer smaller injuries more as a result), or mental attributes like aggression (aggressive players are more likely to push themselves and enter into situations where they may be likely to injure themselves). Perhaps the most common thing which causes injury is if it is a recurring injury, causing things like cartlidge loss (eg. Ledley King), but that is not something you can predict.

As far as I can tell, 'Injury proneness' as a stat means luck on Football Manager, and I really hope that future versions of Football Manager have it removed.

[Santa Claus]

It's not luck as much as it is probability. And it is variable, if player starts to pick up injuries more often, attribute will rise and vice versa. It all goes down to correctly managing certain players, much like in real life.

[Ackter]

No .

[THOG]

Injury Proneness is an imperfect abstraction, but it does model things that you can't quite get from any of the other attributes, namely the long term effects of major injury. Rather than removing it, I would imagine any advancement in this area would involve breaking it up into different types with better representation of specific kinds of chronic injury, but even then, you're talking about an expansion of the entire idea of injury proneness, not its removal.

[BlueHawaiian]

As outlined in my post, a blanket 'injury proneness' stat is unrealistic and too simplistic, but removing it and replacing it with a more complex model would be a good idea.

Someone like Ledley King could be described as 'injury prone', but in reality he played regularly for Spurs until he was 26, then after injuring his knee at that age, it became a recurring problem. So on FM, what would his 'injury proneness' stat have been when he was younger? If not removing it, then maybe this is a stat that could increase over time for players rather than remain a constant.

[YKW]

No .

I would like to politely suggest that you should reconsider your posting style. Circumventing the character limit to post such a useless and arrogant comment isn't really setting a good example. I have already complained about the posting behaviour of staff on here and I think you are doing a good job of showing why. I wouldn't have said anything except this is the second time you've considered your opinion so conclusive and all encompassing that you have decided that contributing constructively is beneath you.

I think the OP makes some decent points and I would like to see a more detailed version of injury proneness and injuries in general. Not sure why you feel the need to dismiss him with no kind of support for your opinion. If you haven't even got 8 characters worth of insight then just don't bother posting.

[Ackter]

I would like to politely suggest that you should reconsider your posting style. Circumventing the character limit to post such a useless and arrogant comment isn't really setting a good example. I have already complained about the posting behaviour of staff on here and I think you are doing a good job of showing why. I wouldn't have said anything except this is the second time you've considered your opinion so conclusive and all encompassing that you have decided that contributing constructively is beneath you.

I think the OP makes some decent points and I would like to see a more detailed version of injury proneness and injuries in general. Not sure why you feel the need to dismiss him with no kind of support for your opinion. If you haven't even got 8 characters worth of insight then just don't bother posting.

I would like to politely suggest that you not throw your toys out the pram just because you got an infraction.

[FM1000]

I would like to politely suggest that you not throw your toys out the pram just because you got an infraction.

Nice way to further his point. I have seen you in other threads responding with the arrogant "no" just because you think the OP is beneath you and you don't need to explain anything. The saddest thing is your not even a real SI employ and yet you act like you created this game.

[Ackter]

No .

[JordanBlackpoolFC]

I don't mind injury proneness being in the game, I just think that the rate of decline in the stats while injured needs to be toned down a bit. If a player above the age of 28/29 gets injured for more than a couple of months on FM, he will never get back to the level he was at before the injury.

[Sebbo]

I don't mind injury proneness being in the game, I just think that the rate of decline in the stats while injured needs to be toned down a bit. If a player above the age of 28/29 gets injured for more than a couple of months on FM, he will never get back to the level he was at before the injury.

This for sure.

[THOG]

I don't mind injury proneness being in the game, I just think that the rate of decline in the stats while injured needs to be toned down a bit. If a player above the age of 28/29 gets injured for more than a couple of months on FM, he will never get back to the level he was at before the injury.

This is definitely annoying, but it's not unrealistic. Once a player hits his peak and starts approaching 30, any significant injury can see him struggling to fully recover. It doesn't mean he can't be a good player anymore and a highly professional player will have a good chance of recovering his peak ability (even if that just means learning to be a more intelligent player), but at that age, managing a player is all about managing and adapting to his inevitable decline with every strain and pull potentially expediting that process.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

Nice way to further his point. I have seen you in other threads responding with the arrogant "no" just because you think the OP is beneath you and you don't need to explain anything. The saddest thing is your not even a real SI employ and yet you act like you created this game.

That's Ackter, been doing that for a while now and I suppose it's tolerated.

It's a shame because I do think he puts across good points at times, when he bothers to explain himself. >_<

[Ackter]

Im just fed up of all the "rip it out" threads when we should be looking to improve things, not gutting the game.

[ZJordan]

For it to be near-realistic there should be more advanced injury proneness attributes, injuries are just so random... sometimes I see a player playing his first game back from a fractured arm to see him break his arm (a bit less random but I've seen very very random things)

It's quite annoying.

[BlueHawaiian]

Im just fed up of all the "rip it out" threads when we should be looking to improve things, not gutting the game.

Removing things from the game can be a way of improving them. As discussed in other posts, injuries are a complex issue that having one all-encompassing stat just isn't really enough when you consider reasons why players get injuries. Maybe players should have weaknesses which you can find out about through scouting/coaching (like how Michael Owen seemed to pull his hamstring a lot), allowing you to manage his injury (such as making sure you don't over-exert him, or let his fitness decrease too much during games).

[Kriss]

Injury proneness exists and is recognised in the real sporting world, it is however far more complex than its FM model.

No way should it be removed but it should certainly be refined where possible.

[Ackter]

All injuries are far more complex than the incredibly simplistic FM model. The entire thing needs to be redone, but it doesn't need to be removed.

[forameuss]

Removing things from the game can be a way of improving them. As discussed in other posts, injuries are a complex issue that having one all-encompassing stat just isn't really enough when you consider reasons why players get injuries. Maybe players should have weaknesses which you can find out about through scouting/coaching (like how Michael Owen seemed to pull his hamstring a lot), allowing you to manage his injury (such as making sure you don't over-exert him, or let his fitness decrease too much during games).

It can be, but this time it isn't. It's flawed and plain wrong to say that injury prone-ness isn't a thing. In fact it's baffling for anyone to argue otherwise. The further suggestions though in making it a bit more sophisticated are more to the mark.

For it to be near-realistic there should be more advanced injury proneness attributes, injuries are just so random... sometimes I see a player playing his first game back from a fractured arm to see him break his arm (a bit less random but I've seen very very random things)

It's quite annoying.

Is your example so random though? I'd say it could very well happen that someone breaks his arm just after coming back from a similar injury. Bones are weaker etc. But then you have acknowledged that I suppose.

I think the big problem is that there's not much transparency with injuries. The ME isn't sophisticated enough yet for us to see the how and why of a player being injured. We only see the outcome. Now if the ME was like the Impact engine EA are using (and I'm not saying FM should) then it might be a bit better. You see your player tussling for a ball, and you see him fall awkwardly. The opposition then falls on top of him. After the game you see he's out with broken ribs. Fair enough, that's sensible enough. But in FM all you get is the player falling over, and *bam* broken leg. I think the fairly simplistic system combines with this to frustrate, it could definitely be improved.

[Ackter]

The ME is probably good enough to do that, it's just the injury system is basically the same one from a decade ago with very little changes.

Game triggers an injury, game more or less randomly assigns what injury it is*

*it's obviously not quite this simple or random, but it may as well be with how it currently works.

[Super Bladesman]

The ME is probably good enough to do that, it's just the injury system is basically the same one from a decade ago with very little changes.

Game triggers an injury, game more or less randomly assigns what injury it is*

*it's obviously not quite this simple or random, but it may as well be with how it currently works.

Yeah, it almost needs a 'player body simulator' to synchronise in-match action, a player's susceptibilities and injuries, i.e. so that a player injured in a match injures the part reflected in the match highlights, and that this should also reflect known/suspected weaknesses. I say almost, that's what it should do.

And it should be apparent immediately in-match where an injury is - not the severity of course, but you should know if it's a tweak or a severe injury and to what rough body part.

[Peter G]

It would be better if, instead of just making a statement that a feature or part of the game should be removed that there was some evidence behind it. Why not see what the difference in players with and without injury proneness is and if it more frequent in players latter careers?

[penza]

Yes you can FMRTE mass edit (1 injury proneness) job done.

[Ackter]

That's never the answer.

[BlueHawaiian]

It can be, but this time it isn't. It's flawed and plain wrong to say that injury prone-ness isn't a thing. In fact it's baffling for anyone to argue otherwise. The further suggestions though in making it a bit more sophisticated are more to the mark.

I don't believe there is such a thing as injury proneness, in terms of it being a destiny like it appears on FM. Sure, some players have more injuries than others, but most times in a footballers career that is due to the recurrence of a particular problem, but just because a player has had a lot injuries is no indication that he will always have a lot of injuries in the future. As I pointed out in an earlier example, Ledley King had no serious injuries until the age of 26, then a knee problem never really healed. Is he injury prone? When he was 16 at Spurs, did scouts look at him and say 'he's very good, but he will be injury prone'? No, of course not. Aaron Ramsey for Arsenal has had a lot of injuries in his young age. Does that mean he will continue to? No, because his injuries are not generally ones which suffer recurrences.

I think a better idea would be to have certain injuries have stats regarding recurrence, as well as factoring in stats that already exist, like bravery, strength, natural fitness, determination, etc, to determine if a player will then becoem plagued by injuries during their career.

[Ackter]

And just because a player in injury prone in FM, doesn't mean he'll actually suffer injury after injury.

You just need to manage them differently to maintain their fitness.

[BlueHawaiian]

From my experience, a player who is injury prone in FM does indeed suffer injury after injury. They are like walking disasters, suffering unrelated injury after injury, regardless of how they are managed.

[tomtuck01]

From my experience, a player who is injury prone in FM does indeed suffer injury after injury. They are like walking disasters, suffering unrelated injury after injury, regardless of how they are managed.

I guess no one told me, as my star player, who's now approaching 33 and labelled as injury prone by my coaches, has played over 250 games in the last five seasons.

Kinda makes a mockery of what have said here.

[Ackter]

My injury prone player was fine until he turned 27ish I think it was. He was still fine for me because I was managing him properly, but whenever he went on international duty he'd come back with a new debilitating injury.

[themodelcitizen]

I've signed Hargreaves in FM13 a couple of times and had mixed results. Needs to be worked into the team properly and turns into a very useful rotating player, too much too fast though and it's injuy after injury. Even at his peak fitness/performance he can't play 2 games in a week and rarely manages the full 90 but it's all about managing him properly.

[CurnRaisin]

I noticed at the end of my current season that my star player has this listed under specific weakness in his reports, before hand I never would have pinned him as injury prone (210 app in 6 years) but after noticing it he did pick up a lot annoying short term injuries, from March to June 2 weeks(twisted knee), 3 weeks(twisted ankle), 4 days(gashed arm), 4 days(bruised rib), now I'm not sure if I just took an added interest in his case as I noticed injury proneness but for me whats annoying is there doesn't seem to be a recurring theme, usually IRL its a recurring thing that gets players, Hargreaves is a perfect example of a career blighted by Injury, in 06' he broke his leg which he claims left his muscles weaker, in 08' it turns out it was his patella tendon that give him grief and it was his knees that pretty much ended his career, 9 appearances from 08-09 season till he retired all injuries down to his knees. In FM does its just see that he is injury prone and give a random injury or is there persistent recurring injuries? Hargreaves and Ledley King for me are enough proof of the necessity of injury proneness as much as any other stat in FM, although it does need some work.

I remember a feature in the old FM and CM I think that you get a physio report on a specific player and if they had an underlying problem your physio could find it and give you the option of surgery/specialist has this been removed completely? For me this is close to IRL events regularly you hear of players going for surgery when they are supposedly fit or at least not seriously injured to catch an underlying problem. As a Liverpool fan I think Johnson, Gerrard and Suarez are recent examples. Should something akin to this be introduced rather than "player A has this bad injury, Send to specialist, send to physio" we have now?

[penza]

That's never the answer.

I always do and makes the game more challenging as no one gets injured!

[Ackter]

And on the day the term "more challenging" was redefined, we stood around and stared.

[Kriss]

Yeh, my logic meter must be broke :confused:

[turnip]

My injury prone player was fine until he turned 27ish I think it was.

I had a DM who my coaches claimed had 'Injury Proneness' as his biggest weakness. He'd missed a ton of games at his previous club and broke his leg (and subsequently retired) about a fortnight before his contract expired.

He didn't have a single injury in his 4 years at my club, while being a #1 choice in his position.

Also, Kieron Dyer is reason alone to leave Injury Proneness in the game.

[Overmars]

I feel as if the effect of injury proneness has been lessened over time in this game. In older versions, a player with an injury proneness rating of 20 would last about ten minutes before getting hurt. In the most recent version, I can occasionally go a full season with that same player escaping serious injury. That is a big improvement in my eyes.

[stevie_G_32201]

I always do and makes the game more challenging as no one gets injured!

how exactly is no injuries "more challenging"?

[cwvink]

Sometimes I have an 'injury prone' player who indeed gets injured all the time. Sometimes I have an 'injury prone' player who barely ever becomes injured (knock on wood). I'm not an enormously seasoned FM player, but I suppose that such stats are relative. I.e., perhaps the player is just a fantastic player across the board.

[Äktsjon Männ]

how exactly is no injuries "more challenging"?

It can be if none of the players in the game world get injuries. You'll always play against opposition's best team as well as being able to field your own. Not my cup of tea but you can see the logic.

[stevie_G_32201]

With the AI squad building that is irrelevant, it will only make the game easier.

[Äktsjon Männ]

With the AI squad building that is irrelevant, it will only make the game easier.

Maybe in long term, but I doubt that was the point. In short term it can make games harder because the AI always chooses its highest CA first eleven if available.

[stevie_G_32201]

But the highest CA doesn't necessarily mean the best player they have for that position.

[Äktsjon Männ]

But the highest CA doesn't necessarily mean the best player they have for that position.

Whatever, but the point is that it has a better selection available and that makes the game harder or at least it can. A human player will always have an advantage over AI, injuries or no injuries. The way I play I always have very very few injuries whereas the AI will always have plenty (unless some outer circumstances conspire to a load of injuries which happens at some clubs weirdly). You don't have to cheat to have an advantage over AI in this regard. Them having a full selection of players is more challenging to play against. I wouldn't do it but it has its logic.

[Gandy]

I don't see how having no injuries would make the game easier?

I've just gone through a centre-back injury crisis which left me playing my semi-versatile full-backs in the middle.

Was a lot less dominant at the back than I usually am.

Guess I can sort of see the logic, however vague it might be though haha.

[Äktsjon Männ]

I don't see how having no injuries would make the game easier?

I've just gone through a centre-back injury crisis which left me playing my semi-versatile full-backs in the middle.

Was a lot less dominant at the back than I usually am.

Guess I can sort of see the logic, however vague it might be though haha.

Well consider the fact that the AI will have your described scenario and due to their poor selection logic will have it more often than you. They are also worse at coping with it because they will more likely use a much poorer player who is natural at the problematic position instead of the sensible option of playing quality players out of position. An injury crises will hurt AI a lot more than it hurts the human frankly.

[Gandy]

I still don't see how having no injuries makes the game harder.

And I'm not so sure the AI has a poor selection policy concerning picking their best players regardless of fitness.

Chelsea have been playing a "half-fit" Diego Costa the last few games. You've seen how devastating he's been.

[Äktsjon Männ]

I still don't see how having no injuries makes the game harder.

And I'm not so sure the AI has a poor selection policy concerning picking their best players regardless of fitness.

Chelsea have been playing a "half-fit" Diego Costa the last few games. You've seen how devastating he's been.

It's a poor selection policy in the game because it invariably leads to more injuries for them. That's how the thing works and is why I always have fewer injuries than any AI club. If you fail to see how stronger AI opposition can make the game harder then there's not much else I can add really.

[Gandy]

Players can get injured at any time, I don't think the AI selection has as big of an influence that you're saying it does.

You're only focusing on the AI being 'stronger' without injuries. You do realise the player won't have any injuries either, right?

If both sides are playing their strongest team, I don't see how it will be any different from how it is currently.

If you have an injured player, you replace him with the best option, thus still fielding your best possible side in those circumstances.

Same goes with the AI, regardless if you think they should play another player instead. They still field their best possible side.

Maybe if the AI didn't have injuries, and we did, I'd see merit in your argument. But that's not what you're saying, is it?

[Äktsjon Männ]

The AI deals with injury situations worse than a human player and selecting half fit players is likely to get them injured in the game. I don't think it's possible to argue with either point. The AI's ability to select the best possible side is also worse than us humans so it helps them to have all the best players available as opposed to us being able to be creative in ways that a piece of programming code can't. It is that simple. I've no interest in going round in circles with this, especially as my initial post was largely in spirit of devil's advocate but I will say it baffles me how those points can be considered controversial.

[Gandy]

I think you've decided to draw your own points from my post. I said I don't think the AI selection has as much influence on injuries as you think it does.

Also, I don't think I've ever seen a player for the AI team being fielded under 75%, which isn't half fit. Its not enough for a full match, but not half fit.

I might be spit-balling here, so don't take it as fact, but I wouldn't say there's much difference between playing someone at 98% or 88% injury wise.

Obviously the player at 88% probably wouldn't see out the game, and his performance would drop as the game wore on, but I really don't think it's the major contributing factor towards injuries.

I've had players tear hamstrings or twist knees after being fully fit. I've also had players with the same injuries being played at less-than-fully-fit conditions.

Having said that, you're yet to really prove that the AI deal with injury situations worse than we (as players) do.

Just saying they play the wrong players isn't really much to go off. Who's to say Player B would be a better fit than Player C, it's not your club.

I'm not trying to argue, just really trying to understand how you think the game will be more difficult without injuries.