Week 9 processing

Mark@Newcastle wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

This is the first case Ive noticed where an attitude 1 player wont sign a new contract and will become out of contract next week. Its happened to Thomas Hitzisperger at Newcastle, whose last 10 game history reads SSSSFFFSFF which would be spoton for an attitude 2 player but he is attitude 1 and will expect to play more often.

i expect this needs discussing as it will continue to happen more frequently now the first attitude 1 contract has run down. Your thoughts ?

Just looked at his recent appearance record.. 6 games for Wolfsburg, four subs appearances and two for the first team.

This is easy... make him Atitude 2..

That sort of record seesm very similar to his appearance record when he use to play for Villa, and that seemed to be the main reason he left Villa as soon as he could, so im inclined to think he will do the same when his Wolfsburg contract expires.

We did review him from a 9595 Ger int on attitude 2 to a 9797 Ger int on 43caps and for these players the system auto sets attitude to 1. The only way he can be an attiotude 2 is if I review him back to 9595. which might be more realistic ?

[quote=[email=Stuart@Roma]Stuart@Roma[/email]]

just some thoughts. atm my only concern is you still have to leave players out after every 4 games cos they get knackered. so i think 80% really should be the highest % of games a player wants to play.

quote]

resting players or out cos of inj/sus counts as having played a game that week.

Do you have to use the REST command though, on that player?

Tom@Charlton wrote:

Do you have to use the REST command though, on that player?

yes

I personally have nothing against Mark, and think he is a great manager, but if this issue was avoided, does it not make the whole attitude thing irrelevant?

We all know about it, have known about it, and have to adjust accordingly. Whether Hitzel should be a 9797 (attitude 1) or a 9595 (attitude 2) shouldn't matter to be honest as Mark has had the benefit of him being a 9797 for the last few weeks.

The attitude thing was brought in to stop the bigger clubs hoarding players, and I, for one, like it. That might be because I have a smaller club though with lesser players.



Sorry Mark.

The attitude issue has made me think hard on re-shaping my squad. It's been a really useful exercise as it was much required.

I really like it too.

Tom@Charlton wrote:

Do you have to use the REST command though, on that player?

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Tom@Charlton wrote:

Do you have to use the REST command though, on that player?

yes

great. thanks paul. makes sense. i see no reason to change things then.

im going to start resting players that dont play in my first team now then

then again paul could probably counter this sort of "cheat" where only players on less than "good" stamina get the benefit of "rest" counting as an appearance.

Stuart@Roma wrote:

im going to start resting players that dont play in my first team now then

players will only be happy to be rested if they are on low or poor stamina

one step ahead as always mr hemsoft

Paul Hemmings wrote:

The only way he can be an attiotude 2 is if I review him back to 9595. which might be more realistic ?

does he play regular for germany still? i think he more or less peaked in his time at stuttgart when they qualified for the CL.

Fulham are having a similar problem with Steven Pienaar, was a 9595 attitude 2 is now a 9797 attitude 1 and only has 13weeks on his contract and has again turned down a lucrative new contract with a big signonfee.

Although if Will plays him first11 for 10weeks then offers again he will sign, so in this case he still has time but he needs to play him or he'll lose him.

what about me paul....i may aswell quit, right? lol

alvaro perreira is loving the bench life.

Stuart@Roma wrote:

what about me paul....i may aswell quit, right? lol

alvaro perreira is loving the bench life.

you have 3 attitude 1s warming your bench Hulk 63wks Pereira 75wks and Vucinic 63wks so your problem is not immediate

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Fulham are having a similar problem with Steven Pienaar, was a 9595 attitude 2 is now a 9797 attitude 1 and only has 13weeks on his contract and has again turned down a lucrative new contract with a big signonfee.

Although if Will plays him first11 for 10weeks then offers again he will sign, so in this case he still has time but he needs to play him or he'll lose him.

well aware of this situation with young steven.

i have been making a point of playing him every cup game and incorporating him into the first team - ironically between cup and coming on in the league hes played as much if not more than most.

Paul, are u able to confirm how many straight hes played for me so i know when i can offer him a new deal - iv just been offering him a better wage to make him happy within the squad.

Will@Fulham wrote:

ironically between cup and coming on in the league hes played as much if not more than most.

you dont get an appearance if he comes on as sub i dont think mate.

Stuart@Roma wrote:

Will@Fulham wrote:

ironically between cup and coming on in the league hes played as much if not more than most.

you dont get an appearance if he comes on as sub i dont think mate.

The only way around this then would be to start him and bring him off after 1 minute I would guess? But then you run the risk of leaving another attitude 1 player out of your team and the problems with that as well?

Will@Fulham wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Fulham are having a similar problem with Steven Pienaar, was a 9595 attitude 2 is now a 9797 attitude 1 and only has 13weeks on his contract and has again turned down a lucrative new contract with a big signonfee.

Although if Will plays him first11 for 10weeks then offers again he will sign, so in this case he still has time but he needs to play him or he'll lose him.

well aware of this situation with young steven.

i have been making a point of playing him every cup game and incorporating him into the first team - ironically between cup and coming on in the league hes played as much if not more than most.

Paul, are u able to confirm how many straight hes played for me so i know when i can offer him a new deal - iv just been offering him a better wage to make him happy within the squad.

Pienaar current history reads SFSFSSSSFF

s=sub f=first11

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Stuart@Roma wrote:

Will@Fulham wrote:

ironically between cup and coming on in the league hes played as much if
not more than most.

you dont get an appearance if he comes on as sub i dont think mate.

The
only way around this then would be to start him and bring him off after
1 minute I would guess? But then you run the risk of leaving another
attitude 1 player out of your team and the problems with that as
well?

yes.

the best solution really is what rob does. play your attitude 1's in the first team and attitude 2's in europe and league cup games.

then sort contract renewals out after the group stages and first round of league cup as all your attitude 2's will have played the required 5/6/7 games.

first half of season is the best opportunity to get game time under belts of all players wanting to play.

rob has the attitude thing sorted better than most i think.

starting a player in the team and then bringing him off after 1 minute probably not a good idea ben, it'll just unsettle things and is just starting a player for the sake of starting him. its better to plan it. i.e the above method.

No turn from Ross this week.

Paul Hemmings wrote:

No turn from Ross this week.

Must be hugely busy Paul I presume? Presume we are we looking like 2moro morning for the matches?

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

No turn from Ross this week.

Must be hugely busy Paul I presume? Presume we are we looking like 2moro morning for the matches?

Im still entering team changes atm so yes, still got all the tactical changes to do as well. always takes longer on a cup week.

paul did you say its FU for a full length friendly? i may try it next week.

is there any chance of making it possible to play away in friendlies or does it have to be at home?

Stuart@Roma wrote:

paul did you say its FU for a full length friendly? i may try it next week.

is there any chance of making it possible to play away in friendlies or does it have to be at home?

FU and it has to be at home

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

No turn from Ross this week.

Must be hugely busy Paul I presume? Presume we are we looking like 2moro morning for the matches?

Im still entering team changes atm so yes, still got all the tactical changes to do as well. always takes longer on a cup week.

Awesome thanks Paul! Top job as usual - can't wait to see how the new pitch plays out!

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Stuart@Roma wrote:

paul did you say its FU for a full length friendly? i may try it next week.

is there any chance of making it possible to play away in friendlies or does it have to be at home?

FU and it has to be at home

hahaha. sarcastic smiley noted