Nowadays every manager has a starting 11 which he will only change when necessary (red card, injuries,…) Players who are on the bench can’t be unhappy at the moment.

I was thinking of something like player form. I would contain several parameters.
For instance:
70% depends on the couple of matches the player plays.
At one hand, a player that plays 2 or 3 (official) matches (league, cup, EL/CL)in 3 turns will be tired (lower stamina) and his form wil decrease. On the other hand players that don’t play the matches they want to (2nd or 3th choice by the manager), will loose form as a lack of competition. Players that play 1 (official) match/ 3 turns will keep or increase their form slightly.

30% random
It’s possible a player loose form in real life too although he is training hard.

Form would influence player skills during matches. For instance. A 95 passer that has a good form will stay a 95 passer but when his form decreases his passing will decrease to 90. I don’t know what’s a reasonal skill decline.

My idea isn’t perfect yet, but that is what I had in mind. Percentages can be adapted.

Nice idea. This plus player morale (which would be related to playing official matches) would certainly make things more interesting.

Player morale could also be part of form then.

This will also be good for the transfermarket I guess. Managers can rotate or sell the unhappy players. More good ( and maybe younger) players will be transferlisted.

Would morale effect scoring of goalgetters? Good morale: normal amount of goals, lower morale: fewer goals.

This is a bad idea considering current board evaluation setup. Currently I believe the board evaluates based on the best eleven players you can field in a competitive game not the actual team you put on the field. Until the board is given better intelligence such things shouldn’t be implemented in the game.

The board evaluation is not based on the best eleven, they consider a few more players than that, the board knows you must rotate some players during the season :-)

So why do you get the board giving an email about a bad result in a game when using a reserve team made up of second string players in a league game, cup game, etc. They should take into account the skills of the actual players used in the game and base game performance on that rather than anything else.

The idea of using more than 11 players to determine the team potential is exactly to evaluate the ability to rotate players without suffering much, so when you play using second string players you should still be able to do ok if you are highly rated. If we always use the actual 11 players used in a match we will allow managers to always use their worst players without being penalized for that. Why should the board allow you to do that and say “oh, well, we lost 5×0 because we didn’t use the star players that we have” ;-)

It depends on the second string players that you use in the game and the skills they have. I generally utilise a second string team in games which I wouldn’t stand a chance of winning even with my default starting squad. Does the board consider this scenario?

Afterall, a lost game is a lost game, regardless of scoreline.

This is how it works:
- each team has an average skill based on its main players (I can’t tell you exactly how many players are considered, but I can say it is greater than 11 and less than 30…lol)
- before a match, the teams’ average skill is compared, the home team advantage is considered and an expected result is defined…keep in mind that this is independent of the actual players used, given that the average skill already reflects the team’s ability to rotate players
- after a match the actual result is compared to the to expected result and bonus / penalties are given to the teams

It is as simple as that, so the board doesn’t care which players you’re actually using, but the ones the team has available. Also, it doesn’t matter who is your opponent, except for the fact you’ll be expected to win by a larger margin against weaker opponents.

I understand your point Kuroyuki but also in real life a board expects the manager to redeem expectations. He can use a B-squad and if he wins it’s ok but otherwise he will be fired. Supporters also want to see the best team play the match ( if necessary some players replaced by reserves). They don’t pay tickets to see a B-team or 11 youths on the pitch.
So the formula for board expectations reflects real life according to me.

When the boards expectations are only to improve the team no matter the game, what sort of things do they expect to be done with the team. In my opinion if my actions still result in player skill improvements across the team, shouldn’t the board be happy regardless of game results.

Well, it’s just a way of saying “we can expect nothing with the current level of players we have compared to the other teams in the competition”. So in this situation you usually lose only 1 or 2 points on games lost, unless the score was really negative. Improving the squad would make the board expect something better next season :-)

The board could not evaluate you for the players you use or there would be no point in managment if any squad I use it would be ok for the board. You are having those bad results for the board probably because of players stamina as I believe the board does not take that in consideration, and it shouln’t, keeping players stamina high is a job for the manager…

Cheers