Realistic Playing Time?

[snyder5man]

So, I play as Southampton. I like to play with the first window off, but I find myself splitting too much playing time with backups. I prefer the 4-3-3, but I do use 4-2-3-1. If I don't change starters/subs in, everyone is upset.
Realistically, I only need 22 players:
GK: Forester, Davis
LB: Bertrand, Targett,
RB: Clyne
CB: Alderweireld, Fonte, Gardos, Yoshida
CM: Schneiderlin, Wanyama
CM: Tadic, Cork, Reed
CM: Davis, JWP, Isgrove
LW: Mane, Mayuka
ST: Pelle, Long
RW: Rodriguez


The rest I wish were on loan.
My question is: How much time is reasonable playing time?
My last career I used 2 team sheets with different starters and different subs. I tried to divide the time up so everyone stayed happy and growing. Problem is, my best players started getting restless and wanted to start every game. I started to do that......and everyone else complained.
In the real season, there have not been much change in the Southampton lineup. Things change for injuries, but very little in the way of accommodating the youth. In fact, they have their own games. I wish EA would factor in age and placement on ones team. It's not reasonable for a 17 year old, 57 over-all Barnes to play when he is the 7th best option at striker on the team...

[burth179]

Re: Realistic Playing Time?

They do have roles, if you try to re-sign a guy you will see his role (future 1st team player, sporadic, squad rotation, important, crucial).

Sometimes it is tough managing roles, especially if you don't have European competition. Because you want to send your best team out there, and if they are fully rested only playing once a week, there would seemingly be no need to rotate all that much in reality.

What I do is if someone complains, I make sure I play them for a few games, even if just coming off the bench. After 4 or 5 games (about a month) they will usually say "thanks for putting me back in the team" or something along those lines. I generally find that this approach works, and that will "shut them up" so to speak for awhile.

Also, I have found winning plays a small factor as well. Maybe it's just observation bias, but it seems that people are slightly more content when you are winning even if they don't play much.

[PPerfect_CJ]

Re: Realistic Playing Time?

This always gets me with Joe Allen. He gets upset over playing time when there's no way I'm starting him over Stevie G and Lucas is the backup. His contract really screws me over. I try and sub him in as much as possible, but it's usually just a temporary fix and the second his playing time drops, I receive another email. Smh.

[burth179]

Re: Realistic Playing Time?

Yeah they will complain again eventually. Sometimes a player's role to start is higher than you actually want it to be. Maybe in that case just sell him on, if he's only a backup he's not a crucial part of the team.

Another thing you can do if you are playing in England, is play all your young guys/backups in the League Cup to get them a couple extra games. Since you also have the more important FA cup as a domestic cup competition, play the backups in the League Cup.

[snyder5man]

Re: Realistic Playing Time?

They do have roles, if you try to re-sign a guy you will see his role (future 1st team player, sporadic, squad rotation, important, crucial).

Sometimes it is tough managing roles, especially if you don't have European competition. Because you want to send your best team out there, and if they are fully rested only playing once a week, there would seemingly be no need to rotate all that much in reality.

What I do is if someone complains, I make sure I play them for a few games, even if just coming off the bench. After 4 or 5 games (about a month) they will usually say "thanks for putting me back in the team" or something along those lines. I generally find that this approach works, and that will "shut them up" so to speak for awhile.

Also, I have found winning plays a small factor as well. Maybe it's just observation bias, but it seems that people are slightly more content when you are winning even if they don't play much.

Yeah, winning does help. I got to the finals in the Capital One Cup and most of my youth moved from red to orange. I guess I'm looking for a formula in time splits. EX: starters 70%, main sub/2nd team 40%, youth 5%? And yes, I know that is 115%. I'm calculating 3 subs per game.

[snyder5man]

Re: Realistic Playing Time?

This always gets me with Joe Allen. He gets upset over playing time when there's no way I'm starting him over Stevie G and Lucas is the backup. His contract really screws me over. I try and sub him in as much as possible, but it's usually just a temporary fix and the second his playing time drops, I receive another email. Smh.

I agree. The contracts are unreasonable. When I resign people, I pay more and leave the role black (if possible).

[PPerfect_CJ]

Re: Realistic Playing Time?

I agree. The contracts are unreasonable. When I resign people, I pay more and leave the role black (if possible).

Yep. That's the best way to go. Worth that little bit of extra money for peace.

[DataBull]

Re: Realistic Playing Time?

I've noticed there are a few superstar type players that will complain even if they are 16 years old, on their first contract, have been made no promises, and are not yet as good as the players in front of them. These, of course, are candidates to loan out.

The suggestions above are good. Also, sometimes I just let them complain. If they aren't one of my top 15 or so, let 'em gripe. If it is reasonable for me to get them playing time I will. But if I guy is 25 years old and the worst player on the team, nothing I can do but try to sell them if I have enough depth. This is usually easy enough once the Youth Academy is rolling along. Before then, with some lower level teams that have small budgets it might be tough to sell a guy.

The other thing is that I've put some of these guys up for transfer and they don't sell, sometimes through multiple transfer seasons. So they will just sit and gripe once in a while. Funny thing is, as the team improves sometimes they become content as they realize they should not have a prominent role and they are on a good team.

Quick story, one year my objective was unrealistically high and I was bouncing along the bottom of the standings before I could get some reinforcements during the December window. The complaints were at an all time high. Every player that wasn't playing thought he should be, and half the players that were playing thought I was a lousy manager.

Bottom line, just like in real life you can't always please anyone. The worst thing that can happen is that he complains enough that your board tries to sell without your consent. Then you just use that money to get someone content in a backup role.