(Discussion) How to implement the chaos at Chelsea and other 'hoarding' type behaviour.

[kentonizking]

Ah, wonderkids, how we covet them.

I have seen squad sizes of up to 100 at times, every year the loan farm grinds into overdrive and they are all sent across to lesser clubs to ply their trade, in the hope that *insert manager name here* will see their development and give them a chance in the 1st team. 

We all do it. Its almost how the game is meant to be played. Hoard them, then sell them and repeat. 

 

Now....IRL Chelsea are doing it. And look how its going for them. I have read several interviews and listened to several podcasts from ex -pros talking about how the size of that squad must be having an effect due to the size of the group who are 'out in the cold' and the pervasive effect on team morale. Lots of opposing voices in a dressing room/whatsapp chat/FIFA circle....pervasive 

Do we think this sort of thing is reflected in the game well enough? I initially think it is not, as I am as likely as anyone to acquire wonderkids in their tens and loan them out, hoping to find the next Gavi, etc. 

If we do not think the negative side of hoarding IS reflected well enough, how best to implement it? 

 

 I would love to hear the thoughts of the community. 

 

PS - Chelsea are not the only club to do this, Fulham and Forest  and QPR have all done this in various ways, but Chelsea are probably doing it in a bigger and badder way...

[Hurin, Papa of Turin]

Definitely think it merits looking into. It is definitely one of the ways FM differs from real world football, and I prefer the game to reflect the real world as much as possible.

[Señor Dan]

I think the game needs to analyze the players' minds more

The players are not robots, they have friends, families behind them who encourage them and also pressure and discourage them.

Players have dreams and hopes but many times reality is harsher than expected, and they end up deflating.

There should be a system of personal goals, which if not met, the player becomes discouraged and his long-term motivation decreases (perhaps his determination, professionalism or potential quality decreases). Those goals should be ambitious (as much as depending on the ambition attribute). So, for example, if Chelsea signs a young 18-year-old wonderkid, with 20-year-old ambition, that player will have the goal of "being a starter this season at Chelsea." If you transfer him to another team, he will not be able to meet that objective and he would become discouraged (although in exchange he would have growth through experience).

[boey]

On 24/02/2024 at 01:33, kentonizking said:

Now....IRL Chelsea are doing it. And look how its going for them. I have read several interviews and listened to several podcasts from ex -pros talking about how the size of that squad must be having an effect due to the size of the group who are 'out in the cold' and the pervasive effect on team morale. Lots of opposing voices in a dressing room/whatsapp chat/FIFA circle....pervasive 

Do we think this sort of thing is reflected in the game well enough? I initially think it is not, as I am as likely as anyone to acquire wonderkids in their tens and loan them out, hoping to find the next Gavi, etc. 

If we do not think the negative side of hoarding IS reflected well enough, how best to implement it? 

The only feature in the game I can think of is that your coaching staff get a higher workload when there are too many players. However, the game treats staff counts incredibly unrealistically. After a few successful seasons you're often able to hire 15+ coaches. 

I remember when one of the spurs coaches (Conte?) had like 10 guys on the sideline with him, and everyone was bamboozled. IRL, there are only about 4 or 5 guys in the coaching team.

I believe this is one of the problems in the game, that you can hire too many coaches, and can have huge squads.

 

The logistics of training 80 people at once should be more accurately factored into the game. For example, How can you do One-on-one training with 46 strikers and 1 goalkeeper? Each striker would probably be only able to take 1 or 2 shots before training for that day ends, assuming the goalkeeper does not injure himself from diving so often.

How about strength training with a squad of 80? I don't know if there's any private gym in the world capable of that.

 

And of course, on top of all of that, is the psychological side of having such a big squad and only one manager, which the above comments have detailed enough

 

Edited June 18 by boey

[Ber-T]

On 23/02/2024 at 17:33, kentonizking said:

I have read several interviews and listened to several podcasts from ex -pros talking about how the size of that squad must be having an effect due to the size of the group who are 'out in the cold' and the pervasive effect on team morale. Lots of opposing voices in a dressing room/whatsapp chat/FIFA circle....pervasive 

I would say that I don't think that the fringe players are necessarily going to have that much of an impact on squad morale. Take Chelsea, I can't imagine that players like Broja, Kepa, Lukaku, Anjorin or Sarr are going to have that much of an impact on overall team morale (as long as they're at another club on loan and aren't an influential player integral to the dressing room).

However, I think it's something that we all barely experience problems with, you sign an 18 year old to a 5 year deal and after 3 years of no complaints you either offer them a new deal and keep loaning them out, sell them a window later as their value has increased due to the contract length or they become one of the lucky few that get an opportunity to sit on your bench and maybe end up actually becoming part of the team. At no point have I really struggled to keep a young and exciting player who isn't quite ready for first team football, any loan seems to completely pacify any player. Even if it's a bad loan and they don't play as much as they'd like they don't blame the player they're just unhappy at the club they're on loan at.

It may be asking too much but I'd love a system that reguarly challenged the player to keep these talents and a completely different player reaction to loans and development. I'd like more players who overinflate their ability and you have to convince them of a pathway through loans or play them ahead of better players to keep them or lose them through transfer requests and refusal to sign contracts, as frustrating as it could be. After each loan the player could drastically change their own view of their abilities and place, for good and bad. A good loan at a decent level club should have a player demanding to be included in the first team, a step up in loan quality or to leave permanently regardless of the length remaining on the contract. A bad loan could have the reverse effect, such as players dropping demands to be in the first team or losing confidence in being ever able to play for the parent club first team and therefore asking to leave permanently.

I personally take lots of punts on grunts when I'm playing the game and loan them out perpetually until they either make it or become clear that they'll be of no use to me and I sell. I think this should come with far more downsides with the very real potential to lose promising players because of this very way of managing. Looking at some of the players Chelsea have lost (De Bruyne & Salah) it should be harder to keep them individually happy as in real life they would be clamouring for permanent moves once they felt the pathway to a Chelsea first team spot was no longer viable. It may be too much to ask because it kind of requires players looking at and understanding the history of players at the club, ie am I moving to a club that reguarly loans out 60 players a season and very rarely actually promotes these to the first team or am I being asked to go out on loan as part of a select few who have an actual reasonable chance of making it at the parent club.