danej

What would you suggest would be an ideal U18 squad size?

Update, I just looked through my reserve sides. The "Reserves" side (roughly similar to U23 in England although no age limit) is ok, a 17 player squad. But the U19 squad is terrible. 37 players in it at the moment. A few will be sold, loaned out or released when possible. But still far too many. In order to have a U19 squad below 25-ish players I would need to have at least a 3 star PA limit at the moment, plus probably get rid of a few with a poor personality. I guess this highlights the idea that squad size should perhaps play a role. The bigger the squad, the more I suspect that player development is hamperede. Even 15-17 olds would be better off with a bit of game time I assume. Not least when they don't practice on match days etc. anyways. But I am no expert and know very little. Any input is appreciated.

As mentioned above: I am currently contemplating to also take into consideration squad size when deciding which youngsters to keep. Perhaps limiting the total number of players to as close to 16-ish as possible for each squad (not including loaned out players who aren't playing at the club). Based on the assumption that having much bigger squads might hamper the development of the players since competition for playing time is too fierce, too many players around for the limited amount of available playing time. Any input on this anyone?

Isn't it better to always give players full time contracts if possible? I always do that. I am certainly no expert at the game and this is possibly a bad habit of mine. But logically I would think that it hampers the development of a player if he is not on a full time contract. I imagine that for relatively poor youngster that I want to keep, it would be better to give them a one year full time contract to take a look at them, with an optional extension if possible. Yeah, the PA drop over time happens all the time to me. I guess that is normal. PA is what is achievable if everything pans out perfectly which it usually doesn't. I would think. At least that is what it's like for me, and I am fine with that. It would also be boring if many youngster reached their full 4.5-5 stars PA, the game would be very easy then. I have never seen the opposite, like a play drastically increasing his PA. But I trust you on that. Perhaps this comes down to my not being very experienced. I have probably only played around 15 seasons of FM in total so I am quite the noob I think. I also deliberately don't optimize player development, like I deliberately makes suboptimal strategic choices in most aspects of the game. Because I want a challenge, I want the game to be realistic and not too easy. The game is very easy if you know the game anx exploit it. Even a noob like me can easily do that. But it doesn't give me anything, just bores me. Speaking of which, I love my current Aalborg BK challenge. The 3rd season is drawing to a close. A have sort of stagnated. Will probably be the 3rd consecutive 2nd place finish in the league, behind dominant FC Copenhagen (København). I like that it is not that easy to dismantle FCK. In any case, I think that I will start to win regular league titles within a couple of seasons. My club has a developed economically well, I have improved facilities and have a lot of decent youngsters coming through. They are not great first team players now and won't be within the next year either, but eventually some of them will be great and/or can be sold for good money. Similar to external recruitment which has also given me some great young players. Think the average age of the first team squad is 23 and with plenty of good talents in the reserve sides or on loan as well. Interesting what you write about personalities. Perhaps I should have at least a 0.5-1 star higher PA threshold to take on youngsters with poor personalities. I have the same experience, they rarely if ever come good. My experience is also that playing time seems important, also for players aged 17 and below. The players that I field regurarly in my first team (could be mostly sub appearances) ususually develop much better.

Perhaps keeping 2 star PA youngsters makes economical sense if you have all round world class facilities. But I don't feel like it objectively makes sense at most clubs, including my current Aalborg BK. This is also due to mye subjective basic attitudes. I don't want to hoard players. I don't want to be perfectionist. I don't want to act according to fear of missing out on developing a decent youngster. I only want to keep a given type of youngers (for example those with 2 star PA, no more, no less), if it is overall a benefit to the club. In other words, that enough of those players will eventually become first team players or can be sold for money than all the wages I would want to pay the group of players over the years in order to keep them at the club and develop them. Regarding 2 star PA youngsters at Aalborg BK: I am pretty sure that I should hand out contracts to any of them. in my four seasons at the club, not one of those players have developed into anything useful. I have essentially tossed hundreds of thousands of £ down the drain by retaining such players. Regarding 2,5 star PA youngsters at Aalborg BK: Similar story as the 2 star PA players, but not as clear cut. I think I sold one player for 100k or something. Otherwise pure waste like above. So it still seems like those players might not be worth keeping. Another interesting aspect to consider is whether you want to have the same threshold regarding internal and external recruitment. I generally won't consider recruiting youngsters from other clubs unless they have at least 4 star PA. Because a lower threshold it would flood my club with youngsters with mostly useless, ressource draining youngsters. Perhaps another way of doing it is just picking the best ones, not having much more than 16 players in each youth squad (in Denmark there are two such squads, U19 and Reserves, similar to U18 and U23 in England). I suspect that having big youth squads also at least to a mild extent hampers the development of the individual players, since they can't all get a decent amount of playing time. Further input is greatly appreciated.

If you are a professional team yourself, should you ususually avoid loaning out players to semi-professional teams? I would imagine yes. Usually the standard of the league for such teams is rather low and perhaps not vastly better than your own reserve side. Besides I would imagine that training is highly negatively impacted by semi-professional status. But I am just guessing. Any input from the experienced head here would be appreciated. I ask because I currently manage Aalborg BK, a top flight Danish sides. There are many opportunities to loan out players aged 18+ to tier 3/4 semi-professional sides. Normally that would make sense and the standard of those league are way better than my own reserve side in the 5th tier (Denmarks' series). But as mentioned, semi-professional status makes me sceptical.

So far, my experience is different from the first part of this advice (the rest is great). I have never seen a youth player with PA 2 stars or lower develop into anything remotely useful (neither a useful first team backup player, nor a asset that can be sold for decent money). Now, I assume this is probably different if you manage in some of the biggest leagues, since if might be worth keeping around anyone with possible Premier League PA or the like. But when I manage second rate clubs, like my current AaB/Aalborg BK in Denmark, I am pretty sure that I should never give contracts to youth intake players with PA 2 and below. Possibly even scrap those with PA 2.5-3, but less clear cut. Any additional thoughts about this topic @herne79 and others? I still find it a highly complex and intriguing dilemma which youth intake players to keep and whom to get rid off. The same goes for players in general, this isn't really limited to the youth intake. I feel like this dilemma is the part of the game where I am still the most uncertain about what strategy I might want to opt for. Unlike most other aspects of the game, I still feel like I haven't landed on a half way useful strategy on this one. Btw, I have never managed in the very low leagues like non-league in England. But pretty much scrapping the youth setup at very low levels makes a lot of intuitive sense like what people suggested above. That is probably also what I would do when managing such teams. But that is a side note. My primary uncertainty regards what to do with mediocre teams like Aalborg BK. Teams that aren't the best and aren't the worst. Teams with mediocre facilities and economic ressources.

I wonder whether you should pretty much only bring your first team squad to the training camp, or whether you should also bring a lot of high PA youngsters (or a third option, every suggestion is welcome)? In other words, what are the game mechanics regarding training camps, and thus which approaches might be more optimal than others? I ask because my general understanding is that talented youngsters, aged 15-17, are generally best left in the U18's unless they are good enough to be part of the first team squad and get sufficient playing time with the first team. Judging from this, it would seem intuitive to leave such youngster out of the training camp, they might be better off doing their regular U18 training. But I'm just guessing here, would be nice with some competent input. In other words, I wonder whether training camp training game mechanics are any different from normal training game mechanics, and if yes, in which way.

I don't know very much about football. So my lack of knowledge is the answer I am afraid. I read the stuff about Barcelona somewhere. I didn't read the same about Real Madrid but I trust you. I wonder how it is in other big, seemingly fan owned clubs. Such as Bayern and Dortmund. Where they stink when you scratch the surface, like Barcelona and Real Madrid seem to do.

Could you be more specific about that vision? I mean, what would save restrictions entail? Anything else besides buying only domestic players?

Interesting that the Aftenposten article has quite a bit about IK Start Kristiansand. I haven't followed the club, or very many clubs, much untill recently. But I got the same feeling from reading the local Kristiansand newspaper Fædrelandsvennen. Seems like many locals are annoyed with the shareholding company owning the club, feel like they sometimes bend the rules. And this article seems to suggest that the criticism is spot on. No wonder that IK Start has struggled for many years if the locals are mostly displeased with the current ownership structure. Generally sad reading. Seems like the rules are being ignored quite frequently and that the Norwegian fan ownership structure is weakening.

Sad if they consider changing. Fan ownership is usually the best I think.

Interesting. I didn't know that, although I have lived in Norway since 2007. I guess it tells that I bare followed football since then, picked it up again the last six months or so. Are you Norwegian yourself? You seem to know a lot about the country.

So, which clubs might be the most sympathetic to manage? And follow in real life for that matter. Personally I do have some preferences regarding this: 1. The club should be owned by the fans. At least the fans should have a shareholding majority. Like the German 50+1 rule. As a worse but perhaps tolerable alternative, the club's elitist owners should at the very least be sympathetic people who care whole-heartedly and consistently about the club and the local community in general. The opposite of the parasite Glazers so to speak. 2. Perhaps not a must, but the club should preferably not have any elitist tendencies in the ownership structure. For example I don't like that at Barcelona only incredibly rich people can become chairman. You have to make a huge financial deposit if you win the election, I don't remember excactly how much, but basically you have to be a billionare or something in order to have any chance of being elected chairman. So, based on these preferences, my suitable candidate clubs for future saves could include clubs like: - Athletic Club Bilbao - AFC Wimbledon - Bayern München, Borussia Dortmund and most other German teams - Real Madrid - Aalborg BK (AaB) - IK Start Kristiansand Objectively the last two clubs are probably worse choices than the others. They aren't fan owned. But as is probably the case with most clubs, most of the shares in these two clubs seem to be owned by well meaning local semi-rich people. Who probably primarily own the shares and fund perpetual financial losses due to a wish to support the local community in the form of one of its most important cultural institutions, the biggest local football club. And I happen to like the two latter clubs because they are located in my two favourite towns/cities in the world. I lived in Aalborg for 9 years and loved the place. I currently live in Kristiansand and love that place as well. They aren't too far apart either, bordering Danish/Norwegian regions, apart by just a 3 hour trip by ferry.

Yes I believe that is more core philosophy as well. And probably will be even more so in the future. Not least the informed decisions part. I see that I enjoy not just managing in some random, lazy way because I don't know what else to do. I like to know the game thoroughly, to know my options. So I can then make my personally informed decision and pick the lazy managerial style that suits me the best hehe.

I probably articulated my self poorly in the original post. Written communication s*cks at times, not least for me who don't have English as my primary language (I am Danish). What I meant was that I understood from one or more of your YouTube videos that is can be problematic to give too much playing time to young players. In any case thanks for the details regarding how much playing time you give to youngsters, some of these details were new to me, valuable information.

Interesting reply, thanks. I guess this implies that I perhaps shouldn't be too worried about having a potentially needlessly big squad. After all my squad is slightly smaller than your structure. And the only change I consider making is to make it even smaller. Regarding U23: Doesn't it hurt the development of younger first team players if the regularly play U23 matches? Then I would think that they have a lot of days where they don't train, both first team match days and U23 match days. But perhaps it is like you seem to apply and what is also my base view even if like to learn about details regarding the game: Maybe the answer to this question is, yes it is suboptimal, perhaps even to a rather significant extent. But so what. It isn't that serious. The structure you describe might be more than good enough for those of us who don't like to be too perfectionsist. And as mentioned I totally share that base view. I am convinced that I will grow more and more laid back in my strategic game approach as time passes. I like learning about the game. But it is more out of a general curiosity I guess. I don't want to micro manage, I don't want to be too succesful, I generally don't want to optimize. I just want to know what I am doing, know my alternatives so that I have a more clear grasp of which choices I make and why I make them.

As mentioned above I have actually never posted anything regarding tactics. Tactics doesn't interest me. I have usually posted about training and various strategic aspects of the game. Btw the problems I have noticed (not just personally but in other peoples posts as well) is not that "narcissitic" FM'ers get provoked and kicked back if their truths are challenges. It is more that people appear somewhat unwilling to give feedback on certain questions. I don't see that as a problem in itself, of course everyone has the right to ignore posts that he finds uninteresting. The weird part is that there seems to be a culture, at least to a mild extent, where a few people write something disrespectful to the person asking a question (often somewhat subtly, mildly, but still disrespectful). Bascially saying something like: This is a dumb/boring/uninteresting question, don't waste our time with this BS. Keep quiet and play the game. Anyway, as others have suggested above, perhaps it isn't so bad. And there are ways to deal with it as you also say. I could put certain users on the ignore list, grow a slightly thicker skin, tone down my activity on certain sub forums etc. I guess some of this is also a general thing and about me. I don't like how people behave on the internet. Too much toxicity, disrespectful behavor. These forums might be better than most places. I don't know, I am not very active on the internet in general, excactly because I don't like how people behave there. And you are so right - written communication is often a very poor alternative to face to face discussion. You can't express yourself well in writing. So misunderstandings are bound to happen all the time.

I am still uncertain what kind of squad size I prefer. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Rashidi says that young players shouldn't be in the first team unless they play around to 15 competitive matches per season (could be 15 x 45 minutes). Not many more, not many less, you can overplay them as well. I trust Rashidi on this and am convinced that he is absolutely right. And I believe that perspective is important when it comes to deciding squad size. At least for someone like me who usually have quite a few young players in my first team squad. Not least because young players are often not as demanding with wages and they can develop well when they play competetive matches on a high level. Anyway, I also imagine that squad size should to a large extent depend on how many important matches the team is expected to play during the upcoming season. So far I usually play saves either in the top three English leagues, or in the Danish top flight with my second favourite team AaB (Aalborg BK). So I basically face on of these two scenarios each season: 1. Around 40 competitive matches (Premier League or the Danish Superligaen, no European competition) 2. Around 50 competitive matches (Top flights with likely a lot of European matches, or Championship/League One) Important background information: I play the preset 4-2-3-1 Gegenpress. So I probably need a slightly bigger squad, more need for rest and rotation. So far I have tended towards a first team squad of 20 players in scenario 1, 22 players in scenario 2 (2 keepers in both scenarios, and 18 and 20 outfield players respectively). I am pretty sure that these squad sizes are more than big enough. I rarely if ever have problems with too many unavailable or jaded players (I rotate when needed and manage training work loads to prevent injuries, works well). I am however uncertain whether these squad sizes are too big? It is difficult to keep track of, but I am a bit uncertain whether most of my younger first team players get enough game time. Whether they are close enough to the recommended 15 competitive matches per season. I guess that another important question is: What number in the squad pecking order should a young player have for it to make sense to have him in the first team squad? I mean, in reality there is a pecking order. Something that I personally keep track of very thoroughly. I have a spread sheet with my first team where I sort of rank and update the pecking order. To keep track of my options for various positions. And to keep track of whether any given player is worth his wages, or alternatively whether I should try to sell him because he has become an overpaid rotation/backup option. Btw I believe that managing the wage budget is a crucial aspect of economical development long term succes for the club, but I digress. For example, in scenario 1 above I would imagine that it is not necessarily a good idea to have a younger player aged 23 and below in your first team squad if he is below number 14 in the pecking order of your 18 outfield players (random number but you get the point). Of course the younger the player, the bigger the potential problem. Would the player develop better in the U18 or on loan? Of course when I talk about pecking order it has various aspects. It could be outfield players as a whole, it could be defenders (4 in my case), it could be right wingers where I might have limited options etc.

I think there is a lot of truth in this, thanks for sharing. I think that it might be a good idea for me personally to aim to develop a slightly thicker skin. Especially on online forums like here, and perhaps to a slight extent also IRL but that is another issue. I also agree with the "ignore user" idea. Actually I recently did so for the first time with a guy I thought was completely out of line. That incident actually turned out to be a positive one btw. I got quite a bit of support on that incident (other users commenting the specific post). I would imagine that the respective user eventually got a warning from the mods. As you imply, when I evaluate now I think that the vast majority of users here seem like good people. Helpful, respectful, supporting. And futhermore, I feel like there are some good people here who have some humility themselves, who are open to suggestions towards a slight change in behavior, toning up the supporting and respectful aspects. People who interact well. So there is much good stuff here.

Ah. Yeah it makes sense if you mean now compared to 2020-21. I thought you meant that forum activty had steadily diminished over many years. Perhaps it is not so bad then.