Very good points made there, it surely has to be of benefit to all that if a player is rested for a few games, his fitness levels should go up ?

Cheers for all the imput guys

I dont think the fitness has to be scrapped as its a great feature that plays a part in the game, i just think it has to be adjusted a bit of it becomes to the dominant factor in team building and that isnt realistic i dont think

I just think the simple addition of a slight increase in fitness for a rest of a player ought to fix the problem (as it was in the old game as i remember it)

cheers

Sim

I have chatted to some other managers about this very early in the game after we noticed the change to the fitness rules. Rotation is vital to success if the rules stay the way they are but I've managed so far with only 1 minor injury this half of a season and I have a lot of players out on loan still including an old defender

I'm not sure if I like this fitness rule better than the last game. It's a different management challenge. I think lots of people are in a panic now because they haven't realised players won't recover during the season. I know I and a few that I've spoken to have prepared for this and I think we've got an advantage now in the second half of the season and I quite like that!

I agree with some of your points Simon but I don't see how young players prices will sky rocket any more than they were terribly high last game. Old players go for peanuts in real life so I don't think that's much of a problem

Well that's a different view to the ones given so far

Stu

This topic was brought up by JD in another section so I'm bringing it back to everyones attention and so it's all kept in one place. I had been waiting to see how managers who dislike the current system would react to Stuart and Steve who have expressed an opposite opinion, but it seems no one wanted to come back and discuss it...

I realise people don't like the new fitness system, but I'm going to disappoint those people by saying I've still no intention of changing it. The old game allowed recovery on the idea that if you're rested for 5 games you'll be less tired when you then play a game. This new fitness system is more complex and the latter posts above are close to the mark. Players like Gerrard who play a whole season near enough are always very jaded come the summer, and international tournaments. You will always hear managers saying this. The new system tries to represent this fact.

Those who want rested players to recover, look at it this way:

If a player plays 10 games, rests for 5, then can play another 10 because he's recovered his fitness, isn't it the same as if he plays for 5, is left out so he doesn't get worse for 2 games, plays 5, left out for 2, etc. throughout the season... This second way is reducing the speed at which a players fitness will reduce, as apposed to it dropping much quicker but then increasing with a short rest. Surely they'll play a similar number of games over the season, you just have to decide when these games are, early or rotate to allow them to be fit later in the season.

The only difference is that its down to the manager to decide. Play him for the first 15 games until he's too tired to play and misses the last 7? Or play him in the key 5 games for the first half a season but resting him against the lesser teams, so that he's still got good fitness going into the second half of a season.

Look at real life. Older players pick up niggling injuries throughout the season if they're relied on heavily. They might play 4 games, pick up a knock and be out for a few weeks. This game and new fitness system represents this.

Personally I think managers have been caught out by the change having not read the rules when the new game was launched. Maybe assuming the fitness was still the same? Now at half way managers are worried their better players who have played almost every game, are likely to be out for most of the second half of the season. In the end, thats down to not managing your team in a sustainable manner. Managers who took this into account will have their better players fresher for the second half of the season, all because they managed their squad better. And this is, after all, a management game!!

My example would be Newcastle. He's bought players in early like Earnshaw who have given him 2 sets of players. A first team and reserves in most positions. For the first half a season he's played his back up players against weaker teams and his first team against the stronger ones. This means all his players will have played about 5/6 games going into the second half of the season, compare that against a team like West Ham whose first team players have played 11/12 games each because there's been little rotation. West Ham had the subsequent advantage in the first half of the season but Newcastle have a CHANCE at an advantage in the second half a season.

Also, managers complained that the old game had a flaw in it. There was no squad limit so big teams like Southampton had a first team, a reserve set of players, and then a youth team basically who could be loaned out to gain experience. The smaller clubs complained this system favoured the teams with money as they had a good first team, good cover in all positions, and a good youth system that would benefit them in the future. NOW with the 22 man limit on squads managers have to decide if they want to invest in cover for their first team, knowing how damaging the fitness system now is, or if they want to invest in young players for the future who they loan out for experience but then can't call upon if there are injuries. Do you invest in youth or cover? That's down to individual managers to do one, the other, or sit on the fence by striking some semi-balance in between.

I've seen nothing to suggest all the above reasoning for the change of the fitness system is wrong. A lot of your points against the current system don't take into account my above points for change. Obviously if you have points that address what I've mentioned then I'm happy to listen to them. But I think this negative reaction so far to the system is because people haven't prepared for it. The managers who have obviously rotated players haven't complained to me so I must assume they're happy with it? Which suggests the above 'against' posts are more to do with panic that you didn't realise your better players couldn't play a whole season, than actually thinking the fitness system is a bad thing.

Also, I understand this is a long post, but if you can't be bothered to read it and just post similar comments as before which don't address the points I've made, I won't bother replying. That's not me being harsh, thats me not wanting to continue repeating myself for the next few months.

Richard.

-- Edited by Football Academy at 15:11, 2007-09-28

Good post Richard,was very helpfull,think im like most of the managers in the game and never read in2 the fitness part much,its cleared a few things up 2 me,a still dont think it has changed much maybe from last year,if iv read correctly(and i hope i have lol),the managers last year thought the system benifited the bigger clubs,i dont think the current system is any better,the smaller clubs havnt any money to buy in players for backup,maybe the odd small club if your lucky enough you might get a large squad therefore it makes it easier to rotate players,my squad was quite small when a got it and still is,i had to strengthing the 1st team as it wasnt doing very well,most my players iv brought in have played every game and a spent the money on the 1st team as it really needed it,there fitness ratings are holding not to bad just now but my point is that the bigger clubs can sell a player for say 15m and buy 3 or 4 good youth players in as back up but the smaller clubs have to make doo with a couple of players with the ratings of 5 as cover,we just cannot afford to bring backups in,not unless ur 1st team squad was good then u could concentrate on bringing in a few backups,i dont want it 2 change,i think the way the game is just now makes it challenging and exciting,im really enjoying it,maybe next year il inherit a few good young players because my aging squad will never last the season and with no cash maybe a could end up nearer the bottom by the end of the season,just means that if the bottom clubs do well im my perspective we are better managers than the top clubs,they might win more things and have more money but i think what makes a goo fantasy football league is taking a small club from rags to riches,thats what its really about,getting a big team spoils it for me,if i get Athletic Bilbao up in2 the la liga il be more happy than say Man Utd manager as they win yet another season.

David Athletic Bilbao

Is that why you applied for Espanyol david? because last time i looked they were more than a small rags team.



Good post Richard. i think the maximum squad size makes it all work.

Good man David

i started at Boro and it was a great laugh building a team from scratch to get promoted. In the end i even had Adriano leading the frontline!

Good luck with Bilbao

Simon
Arsenal

Last season David, Bilbao won the Spanish La Liga and Kings Cup!!!

The season before we finished one from bottom!!!

Adam