danej

I was never thinking that mods deserved any special blame. I understand that moderating is probably an impossible balance to an extent. In any case it was more a subjective observation regarding the debate culture. I have also been thinking, as you and others perhaps imply, that perhaps part is on me and my subjective taste. I don't like the debate culture on the internet in general and rarely take part in any of it. I suspect that @Jack722 is right and that most places might be worse. Perhaps some of this is just very difficult to deal with. It reminds me, I once read that people on average are less polite and more toxic when writing anonymously with people the don't know well. The opposite of face to face contact. Actually, how could it be any differently. The lack of quality interacting that comes with writing between strangers or semi-strangers makes quite a few of us behave less politely than we would otherwise have done. Just common sense I guess. Perhaps it is like a few seem to suggest, that one could also be grateful that is isn't much worse which could easliy be the case. I don't know. In any case, for me personally it has been positive to make this thread and put these thoughts out in the open. Mixed response, but in any case quite a bit of support and understanding. And a positive thing is that the vast majority seem to agree that we should have a rather polity debate culture here. Toxic behavour might not be allowed to get too much out of hand. Which makes it easier to shrug off a bad experience now and then. For me personally my experience on the forums have been more positive than negative. I don't see myself quitting the forums any time soon. Personally I would like a harsher stance towards disrespectful behavior, but I respect that the majority might see it differently. And I see the dilemma you describe. In any case it is not a serious problem, the current status is good enough for me. Perhaps this is as good as it gets on an online anonymous forum. Btw you could make an occasional poll to see what people prefer. Not just for active users of these forum but send the poll to any steam account that purchased FM22 for example. Ask people what kind of culture they prefer, what would make people use these forums. It doesn't matter what I or any other individual think. It doesn't even matter what the majority on this forum thinks. Perhaps the most interesting would be to find out the consensus of potential forum users in case a certain forum culture was established. Culture creates a selective crowd. Perhaps the crowd who uses this forum would be different if culture was different. I know I am inconsistent here. I guess I just don't know what to think, I see different perspectives. I personally think that there is room for improvement with the current culture. But I don't know whether it is a significant or insignificant problem. And I don't know how easy it would be to change things even if people wanted to. I am glad this forum exists though. Other forums I have tried have for me subjectively been pretty much totally useless. This forum certainly has a lot of quality even if it might not be perfect. It certainly is a lot better than what I experienced when I played World of Tanks some years ago. An aggressive game attracts aggressive people I guess, or at least brings out the worst.

He, the girlfriend comment is hilarious. It is the same for me. As Irvin Yalom says in one of his books, he expresses gratitude towards his wife who elevates and civilises him, something like that. And it is true for me as well. It is extremely interesting, and concerning at the same time, what you write about the forum having died down and that many top-posters have left. I would think that it is crucial to find out why this has happened. Someone should talk to these top-posters. Find out what it would take for them to come back. I suspect that a sometimes slightly toxic culture is part of why they left. And that some of them could be persuaded to give the forum a second chance if we manage to improve the culture a bit. That would be wonderful. For all I know this forum is still the best one out there, even if it might have been better back in the day. I imagine that it would be a good thing to make an effort to strengthen this forum. Not least to try and strenghten the healthy parts of culture here. Culture is essential for success.

Hehe. I suspect that you are right. I actually never cared one inch about tactics. I have never used anything else than the preset tactics in-game, mostly the preset 4-2-3-1 Gegenpress. And I have never missed doing more fancy tactical stuff either, that just isn't for me. What I have used the tactics/training forum for is purely training and various forms of strategic advice. At times comments there have been slightly disrespectful. But overall, it has never been outright terrible. And importantly, more often than not I have also been given incredibly valuable advice and input, not least from @herne79. And actually @glengarry224 who posted above I see. I rate these guys and others very highly. So it is a mixed bag. But definitely a lot of good in the bag. Perhaps even mostly good. But still. I think various sub forums here might have room for improvement when it comes to healthy, respectful debate culture. Perhaps a rule should be added that everyone has to read Amy Edmondson's book "Psychological Safety" before they are allowed to post anything hehe. In any case, I actually do think that it is possible to change culture here for the better. And I find the discussion on this thread encouraging. If people here want to, we can start nudging each other in a slightly different way. Encouraging more/even more warm, respectful, supportive interaction and less of the opposite. I do get a feeling that many in here actually would like to contribute to such a change. And that it is constructive to have a discussion such as this. To serve as a reminder of how we would like to influence the debate. I think most of us have good and bad in our personalitites. And I am certainly very far from perfect myself, both on these forums and in general. In any case, I think that we do sometimes change for the better. That we sometimes manage to change culture to the better. When we become aware that change would be fruitful. When we become highly motivated to make a change. I guess that when I started this thead and continue to comment on it (and many other threads) it is also because I love FM. And I really care about these forums. They offer so much. And they probably have potential to be even more valuable than they already are.

Good question. I think I would also prefer to stop this if possible. Mostly because I guess that it to a mild degree ruins the training of the U18 players, taking time off training to play U23 matches.

Btw I really appreciate your "realism" comments. I think that at an unconscious level I have been developing my own attitude towards the game in the same direction in recent months. I love to thoroughly learn about the game mechanics. But at the same time I sort of don't care. I hardly ever use that knowledge to optimize my success. Actually I usually do the opposite, play with harsh self imposed restrictions in order to not be too successful. And understanding game mechanics makes it easier for me to pick the restrictions that I subjectively enjoy. In other words, thanks for putting this into words for me, to make me more conscious about this. Btw what I also wanted to say is - I think I also enjoy more and more to play the game from a realism perspective. To not care about what is optimal in game. But just do what I think a club would do IRL. That is also part of why I delegate everything regarding training, scouting and staff recruitment among many other things to the ass man. It is of course incredibly suboptimal. But I like it. And to me it feels more realistic. I don't like being an almighty club dictator who is not only manager but basically the whole staff incorporated in one God-like person with limitless ability and work capacity. I like to let the staff be allowed to do their job. Even if they usually suck, hehe.

That makes totally sense. And as you know I have a similar fundamental attitude towards the game. It is an insignificant detail, but so far I personally lean slightly towards moving certain 15-17 y/o players into the U23. If they are good enough. Not because it is optimal, perhaps it isn't. But if it at least isn't significantly suboptimal, then I might do it due to my subjective interpretation of realism (no truth at all, yours and others' interpretation of realism is at least as good as mine). More specifically, my impression is that this often happens IRL. That good U18 players are frequently moved to U23 teams. Simply if they are good enough to play at that level. I would think that this happens more often than not. Not that I really know though. I have barely followed real football for many years. Just picked it up again in recent months, along with FM actually. Nice to no longer have small kids, my twins are now 6 years old. And for the first time in many years I have a vague resemblance of spare time. Anyway, I have followed my favourite IRL team Sunderland extensively throughout recent years. Now, Sunderland has obviously been a total joke of a club, at least untill the current owner took over a couple of years ago. But anyway, at Sunderland they seem to quite often move good U18 players into the U23 team. Based on the rationale, why not, if the player is good enough he will get a better challenge in the U23 team and will thus develop better. I therefore assume that they do this in most other IRL clubs as well. But I don't know, just guessing.

So I guess you have rather few players in your U23 team then? Only those you can't loan out?

Great input, thanks. I think that implicitly you also say that you keep pretty much anyone aged 15-17, and certainly those aged 15-16 in your U18 squad? If yes, why? Why not move the better ones to the U23 squad if they are at least as good as the better U23 players? I don't doubt that your choice is a sound one, I am just curious. I would guess that it is about overall development. That perhaps your experience is that such players develop at least as well if you just keep them in the U18 squad. But I am surely curious as to what is your rationale behind that choice.

I pretty much agree with all of this. I don't hold any individuals accountable either. I understand that there is a fine line when it comes to moderating. I meant if more like an observation. And again, a subjective one, I could be right, I could be wrong, everyone has their own opinion. Personally I hope that these forums, or the perhaps more dysfunctional of them, can over time evolve in a manner so that they have more psychological safety. Where any post, any comment, any question is treated with respect and support, or at least not the opposite. Culture can change if the majority wants it to. Perhaps my input can contribute. And if not that is fine as well I guess. Consensus rules, people get the debate culture that they want. Luckily noone is forced to be active on the forums if they are sceptical towards the debate culture. And I do agree. There is a wealth of knowledge here. Much more than on any single web site or YouTube page etc. that I have found so far. And of course you will be right eventually. If a forum user, generally or in certain contexts, finds it hard to obtain sufficiently helpful and supportive feedback, he will eventually have no choice but to figure things out on his own. And as you say, that isn't so bad either. FM truly is a wonderful game. Whatever happens on these forums is insignificant. Nothing can spoil the greaty joy of playing the game.

Haha, it sounds amusing. Although I guess wasn't very funny for you to in the middle of that. Yes, perhaps it was a good thing that that sub forum died. Btw what does "noped out of existence" mean? I am just curiuos. I am not the most experienced internet user and there is a lot of internet slang that I don't know. I tried googling the phrase. Perhaps it means that people just stopped writing in that sub forum altogether? I am actually concerned that this is excactly what is happening on a broader scale. I suspect that many people are much less active on these SI forums, or some of the sub forums at least, than they would actually like to be. Because they don't like the disrespectful tone that seems to appear at times. If that is the case I find it sad. There is nothing better than when people feel they have a forum filled with psychological safety so to speak (a great Amy Edmondson term). Where anyone, any post, any question is treated with respect and support, or at least not the opposite. It is very interesting how you describe the tactics forum. I guess that is a positive thing as well. You seem to imply that many other sub forums have a more healthy culture. I am glad to hear that. Which guys left to post on their own blogs? The name of the blogs? Sounds like people I would really like to follow.

I am rather new to these forums. Have perhaps been active for 3 months or so. Similarly I am rather new to the game, have only played FM21 + 22 + some older versions 20 years ago. So far my impression of the debate culture on these forums is rather mixed. There are a great deal of helpful, friendly and knowledgeable users here. So that makes it worthwhile asking questions here, in spite of quite a few bad apples in between. Anyway, on the negative note I find - at least on the training/tactics forum which is almost exclusively where I have been active - that there is a semi-toxic debate culture. I am not saying this is the truth, it is just my subjective opinion. Once again, there is plenty of helpful and valuable input there. But on a regular basis there is also disrespectful comments. Where the message is sort of: Keep quiet, just play the game, figure things out for yourself, don't bother us with this question. I find this attitude weird. First of all I have double checked, and most of the time such comments seem unwarranted - it is difficult if not impossible to find high quality knowledge on the topic being adressed. And second, no matter what, why shouldn't it be ok to ask a question even if it has been discussed earlier. It seems weird to have a debate forum and then try to bully people from using it. I don't understand that certain people here can't just ignore posts that they subjectively find uninteresting and annoying. People should just ignore posts that they subjectively find uninteresting or annoying or whatever. They don't need to write a disrespectful comment to the person asking a question. I fully understand and accept that my opinion is unimportant. I can't change the consensus here, and I won't try. If the majority of users think that things on the training/tactics forum are fine the way they are, I will live with that. But who knows, perhaps the majority agree with me to an extent. I can't see that this topic has been discussed before. Perhaps this post can be a step towards changing the debate culture on these forums to the better. Once again I will point out that this is pretty much exclusively aimed towards the training/tactics forum. I barely know any of the other forums and hope they have a more healthy debate culture.

I find this response disrespectful. Especially since it doesn't seem true. I have been googling this and don't find anything useful. Just a few posts here and there, and the people discussing it don't really seem to know what they are talking about. My impression is that disrespectful comments like this are rather common on this forum and I wonder why admins tolerate it. But that is not for me to decide. I just think it is a shame. The general tone discourages discussion. But on the other hand there are many pleasant and knowledgeable users who give their input as well. So that makes it worth it in spite of some bad apples.

Or similar for other countries, for example from U19 to reserve team if you manage in Denmark. On one hand you could argue that when the player is good enough to get regular game time with the U23's, you might as well move him there so he gets match time on a higher level. On the other hand I guess you could argue that you should keep your players aged 15-17 in the U18 team untill they turn 18. Because traning is the most important part, and perhaps they get better training tailored to their aged in the U18's. I don't know about any of this, I am just speculating, theorizing. I am much to inexperienced with the game to have a clue about this.

During boot camp, do you manually ease training intensity for first team players aged 17 and younger? If yes, how much, which settings, half intensity perhaps? Or alternatively you perhaps move first team players aged 17 and younger to the U23 team temporarily, untill boot camp is over? I ask because my impression is that players aged 17 and younger those don't deal with boot camp training very well. I doubt that boot camp is good for players aged 17 and younger. But you know much better than me.

When do you play your first friendly? I think what you imply is that you don't play friendlies during boot camp. And that the first friendly marks the end of boot camp. But I am not sure whether I interpreted this correctly. Another question: Do you use a boot camp training schedule in the same way, for the same duration, for all your squads, senior team, U23, U18? My sparse experience so far suggests that it works well for the first team + U23. But I am less sure regarding the U18 squad. Most players aged 17 and younger seem to achieve "low" jadedness already after a week of boot camp, perhaps even faster. So I am puzzled as to what is a good duration of boot camp for players aged 17 and younger. Perhaps no boot camp at all for the youngsters.

My impression is that a one week heavy physical boot camp is usually a great way to kick off pre-season. Among others, my interpretation of a Rashidi FM22 video was that he also does this. My sparse experience is that it works well for the senior squad + U23 (England). However, I don't know whether it is a good idea for the U18 team. I noticed that most players in the U18 team go from "fresh" to "low" jadedness after such a boot camp (unlike the senior squad and the U23's where pretty much anyone stays at "fresh" jadedness). And furthermore, that jadedness of the U18 players doesn't drop again. It stays at "low" for months if not the entire season. My impression is that it is not about squad, but age. That most players aged 17 or younger suffer from a boot camp, stay at "low" jadedness for months if not the entire season. So I wonder whether I should drop the idea of a one week boot camp for the U18's. What might be the best for the development of the players in the U18 team - one week boot camp to kick off pre-season, or a more normal/moderate/balanced schedule, sort of like whather the ass recommends? Another idead might be to manually lower training intensity during boot camp for anyone aged 17 and younger? Perhaps set it to half intensity during that week?

Good questions, I would also like to know this

How long do you wait before you play any friendlies during pre-season? In other words, for how long do you run an extreme physical boot camp-style training schedule? Do you do the same initial pre-season routine for all squads, also U23 and U18?

Most managers seem to change at least a few things between the regular season and pre-season. Among the stuff that I have often seen people change is: Training. Various aspects of it. Who is in the first team squad. Some seem to call up extra youngsters during pre-season to make sure you always have at least 20 non-injured outfield players in the squad, and at least two players for each position. So that you can sub off the entire team after 45 minutes and/or rotate heavily during the friendlies should you wish to do so. Anyway - which changes do you think are good to make between pre-season and the regular season? And why? Edit: I also wonder what people do with their U23 and U18 squads during the complex initial pre-season period. My impression is that many don't touch the youth squads, but also that many use the same or similiar pre-season routines on all their squads.

Interesting. Perhaps this means that although the player responds positively to frequent praise/criticism, the actual end result might not be positive, in spite of what the player response suggests. If you do it frequently that is.

I wonder: Excactly how effective is it to praise/criticise players for their traning and match performances? I am convinced that it is quite effective. Both from my own sparse experience as a rather new FM player. And from what I see elsewhere. But I wonder excactly how effective it is. More specifically I ask because I am in some ways undecided as to how I prefer to play the game. On one hand I don't want to be too succesful, with total succes being a foregone conclusion and only a matter of time. To a large extent I prefer results that I not too far off what would be realistic for the club. On the other hand I don't want to do terribly either. And it is nice to understand the game mechanics and know of easy ways to improve performance. My impression so far is that it works well to praise weekly training ratings from around 7.75 and above (perhaps even above 7.5, I am not sure). Criticise at 6.45 or lower. And similarly with match performances. Goes for all squads, senior squad, U23, U18. But I wonder whether these morale boosting actions is too effective for my subjective taste. Whether that style is almost a way of exploiting that game, making it too easy. I wonder excactly how effective such morale boosting actions are. I also wonder HOW these morale boosting actions are effective. They obviously improve morale and thus match performance. I imagine improved morale also improves training performance to an extent. But I wonder how much these morale boosting actions influence player development, I mean attribute improvements. I see that similar topics have been discussed before. But not in this detail. And besides, I only found 4-5 year old archived post. So I hope it is not out of hand to make a new post about this.

I doubt it, or he changed his way. His last 50 playlists or so are with other games than FM. Edit: Or I could be looking at the wrong the channel. There of dozens of channels containing the name Scribe. In any case I can't find the right one.

Yeah I also consider starting to manage the friendlies. For the same reason, to be in charge of substitutions. Ass man seems to leave the startert on for way too long during the friendlies.

Let me just clarify that I am rather inexperienced with the game. I learn all the time. Pretty much on a weekly basis I learn stuff that I didn't know before and change my way of playing the game. I probably ask dumb questions and say dumb things on a regular basis (to the experienced players). Unknown unknowns. In any case, I have been thinking much of the same lately. That it might be difficult to have rigid settings and just leave the players to it. More specifically I am considering having pretty much the default settings, but frequently changing the settings manually, following the recommendation from the physio. At least weekly, perhaps daily or almost daily, it is just a couple of clicks anyway, letting the physio decide the individual intensity. Btw. I wonder what happens to rest settings for the U23 and U18 teams (England) if I am not in charge of team training myself. I don't really want to be in charge of team training, or any training for that matter. Prefer to keep the game as simple as possible. However, at the same time I would like my players to progress at a decent pace. It would be a shame for example, if needlessly few young U23 + U18 players trained on double intensity even if the physio recommends it for the player. I am also wondering whether the training intensity setting should be heavier during the boot camp-style start of pre-season. I have no clue. Logically you could argue both ways. You could argue that pushing the players even more is good as perhaps part of the aim of boot camp is to push the players physically to the max as long as they have no fatigue. On the other hand you could argue that a boot camp / heavy physical scheduling is demanding enough as it is, and that it would be overdoing it to add double training intensity on top. Hmm... Now I check a couple of things in game (I am at the start of pre-season, start of the save on July 5th, boot camp time), I see that if I follow physio recommendations and have most first team players on normal intensity to begin with, all or pretty much all players still have a "heavy" total workload. I imagine this implies that I should follow the physio's recommendations also during boot camp. It logically seems risky to take an individual player from normal to double intensity if his workload is already heavy under normal intensity. Plus that all players at the start have high injury risk due to no match sharpness. In a few test runs I made I also seem to often get many injuries if I stick most medium to old aged first team players on double intensity during boot camp.

In a custum/pre set 4-2-3-1- Gegenpress, in which training unit should the central midfielders be? The BWM (de) and the BBM respetively. I mean whether they, or one of them, should be in the Defensive or Attacking unit respetively. I assume the other positions are no brainers. That the four defenders go in the defending unit and that the for attackers (the two inside forwards, the AM and the Pressing Forward) go in the Attacking unit.