Changes to injuries...

[BobStanley]

I think too many injuries occur as a result of not so much the players fitness level but how many matches the club plays. I have players that have 100% fitness getting injured during friendly matches.

I have some thoughts on changing the way injuries are done and was wondering what other managers thought about it?

I think the chance of injury should only come as a result of a low fitness level and how good your physio is. For example, if a player is at 100% fitness his chance of injury is very very low.

Things that effect fitess level during a match increasing or decreasing chances of injury should be:

* Match Aggression (Playing with a higher match aggression should not only result in more cards but more chance of injury to your players not your opponents players. Players with already high individual aggression would not be any more likely to get injured but thier chances for getting carded should remain the same)

* Type of match (I believe fitness already drops more during league and Cup matches but friendly matches should drop less than friendly cup matches. Therefore, it would be possible for injury during a friendly match played with low aggression and high fitness but would be very very very unlikely much like injuries during training.

* Stamina (Instead of stamina only determing how much a player recovers between matches it would also have an effect on how much fitness is lost during a match.)

I know budist has some opinions on this also so I hope expresses them here.

Regards,
Bob

[Sjarel]

I'd like to add this to this discussion: I'm planning on changing the way injuries are handled. I hope this discussion can lead to some interesting ideas and insights to help me decide on how to implement this for the future.

[budist]

yes. Actually fitness should be the main reason for injuries. I've seen players with 10% fitness that don't get injured, kind of strange. Also agression should be important but to yourself, risk of injury for improved performance. So you can't sabotage another team.
Also, friendlies should have a much lower risk, and teams that play with less than 20% should not have any injuries. It's logical, two teams say they want to make a friendly match, nothing hard, they play normal, no player wants to injure another so they tackle soft.
The risk should come in friendlies only if they begin having less than 80% fitness.
Actually i think that stamina leads to how much fitness a player loses in a match, and that fitness grows the same at 4 am simulation for all players.

Again, fitness and agresivity should be the main reasons for injuries. But what agresivity you chose affects you, not the opponent. And if an injury occurs to a high fitness player, his injury shouldn't last more than 3 days.
There is also a bug with injuries, a player should recover his fitness after the injury is over, instead a 1 day injury takes 3-4 days (or more) to recover fitness. So it is actually a 3-4 days loss, no difference between a 1 day injury and 4 days injury from this point.
I'll tell more opinions tommorow, not it's night and i'm tired

[pelsen]

and teams that play with less than 20% should not have any injuries. It's logical, two teams say they want to make a friendly match, nothing hard, they play normal, no player wants to injure another so they tackle soft.
The risk should come in friendlies only if they begin having less than 80% fitness.

I don't agree on this point, because in every match there's a risk of getting injured. The possibility should be lower, but not totally zero.

And if an injury occurs to a high fitness player, his injury shouldn't last more than 3 days.

I also don't agree, for quite the same reason as above. A long lasting injury should occur less frequent to a high fitness player.

There is also a bug with injuries, a player should recover his fitness after the injury is over, instead a 1 day injury takes 3-4 days (or more) to recover fitness. So it is actually a 3-4 days loss, no difference between a 1 day injury and 4 days injury from this point.

I'm not sure if it's a bug. You can train a player who's not injured anymore, so that's in favour of having a player who's having a short injury period.
I assume there are players (IRL) that are recovered, so they can train, but are not able to play a match allready.

But I agree it might be better some things will be changed, and I look forward to the discussion

[budist]

why should a high lasting injury occur more frequent on high fitness players? They are in a good shape, a low fitness player is in a bad shape and has a bigger possibility to receive a long-term injury

[pelsen]

why should a high lasting injury occur more frequent on high fitness players? They are in a good shape, a low fitness player is in a bad shape and has a bigger possibility to receive a long-term injury

I think I wrote that a high fitness player should have a long lasting injury less frequent (than a low fitness player), but the possibility should be there.

[h00psta]

My input on this topic is: I think injuries are fine as they are. Anyone can be injured in real life, even with perfect fitness. I can absolutely agree it's frustrating when you have a 100% fit player with stamina at about 95%, and he gets a broken ankle, but that is entirely possible.

But, can a player ever be 100% fit? Is it technically possible to have 100% fitness or 100% stamina? In my opinion, it's impossible for a human to be 100% fit. Maybe if we change it so that 98% or 99% is more common, people would be more understanding about injuries.

When a player has such a high fitness level like that, it's still possible they could tear their hamstring or something, despite warming up well. But of course, it's greatly reduced. Perhaps we can have it that:

If a player's fitness is above 95%, muscle strains and such injuries are extremely unlikely
If a player's fitness is between 80-90%, muscle strains and such injuries are more likely but still slim
Below 80%, you have some chance, below 70%, some more, and so on.

Injuries should be categorised into two types:

1. Unfortunate injuries that anyone can get, regardless of fitness
2. Injuries related to fitness - muscle strains, dead legs etc

For injuries of type 1, anyone can pick one up. For injuries of type 2, if your players are fit and healthy, you will likely avoid them. Injuries of type 2 could be avoided if:

Your player has high fitness
Your physio has a high rating

Pre match warmups

Another idea could be the implementation of pre-match warmups. Here, where you choose the lineup, there could be an option to select a small pre-match activity for your team.

Warm up. This action will make sure all players in the team and on the bench warm up well with the physio - stretching and so on. Selecting this feature reduces chances of personally inflicted injuries to your players. For example, if your players have fitness levels in the mid to low 80's, it might be a good idea to select this, for an added boost.

Tactics. This action will make the team go over the game plan (Passing, Kick and Rush, Defensive Wall, etc) and could result in better execution and slightly higher ratings for players. When individual orders are implemented, this could be even more useful. However, players don't warm up, so injury risks exist as normal.

Practice. The third option could be for the team to go out and practice (as they do in real life). Basic passing, some shooting drills before warm ups, goalkeeping practice. Selecting this option gets the players ready for the game and chances that some of them play a little better are fairly high. That said, the downside, they do lose a tiny bit of fitness, since they are doing some practice before kick off. If your players have high fitness, you could perhaps afford to do this and it could pay off.

I think implementation of some pre-kick off activity is a good idea, and closely related to the injuries topic.

As for the injuries themselves, as I said, I think they're OK as they are, but I made some suggestions anyway.

[BobStanley]

I guess I should change my first line to read that I think too many players get injured at 100% fitness. I do agree that there should always be some chance of injury no matter what but not as much as there is now. It should be calculated based on fitness, aggression, your physio and match type. One of the things I personnally have a very hard time doing is playing enough matches to keep high morale for all of my players. But that leads to a large number of injuries even if the players in those matches have high fitness. I think that injuries as they are now is more based on number of matches played than how low fitness levels are...

Regards,
Bob

[BobStanley]

Come on folks, someone else has to have opinions about this...

Regards,
Bob

[BobStanley]

Just a couple of more things to add to this from a previous thread;

I've had 2 CM's injured and one of those CM's was injured a second time his first game back from injury when I played him at 90% fitness... So that's another occurence of the same postions getting injured and the same player getting injured in his first game back from injury. Just recently it was GK's but this time it's CM's. Except I should also say that I have a RM and CF injured as well...

Regards,
Bob

[Sjarel]

Seems like only 5 managers, including me, are interested in injuries. I don't even wonna know what percentage that is ...

I agree injuries should depend on fitness and physio. Agression should IMO not be taken into account, because if we do, it would normally influence the injuries of your opponent more than yours.

I also don't think there should be a difference in match types, players already lose less fitness during friendlies and I feel it's a good thing managers have to make choices: "Do I play a game to raise moral BUT have a risk on injuries or not."

There is one more thing I'm thinking about. should we make some players more injury prone than others, actually I feel that would be a good idea.

Any thoughts ?

[Peja]

There is one more thing I'm thinking about. should we make some players more injury prone than others, actually I feel that would be a good idea.

Any thoughts ?

It was my idea about the hidden skill all the time before So I like the idea, but the possibility to be more prone to injuries, should not be visible (not even for the owner), because otherwise it would be a real bad case for the transfermarket.

And actually, this would be something that should not be possible to calculate

[matt]

Yes that would be a great option, but the difference shouldn't be too big then so resistant-injury players have still possibility enough of becominge injured themselves.
Letting it depend on fitness and physio, I can agree on that.
Also I think someone who just came back from an injury should have a slight bigger chance on refalling in that injury again, compared to someone who is already matches without injuries. In this case, there would be no connection to fitness, because otherwise there would be an advantage for those who come back with 100% and others with +-60.
Your opinions on the last part?

[Zfreez]

Imho
Players with 90%fitness+ =10%chance of injury (minor injury's 10%,Major injury 5%)Should still be able to play(maybe sub @half time or three quarter time)
Players with 75%fitness+=35%chance of injury (minor injury 35%,Major injury 15%)Should still be able to play(maybe sub @half time)
** but players with 50% fitness and less shouldn't be fit for play or risk Major injury 50%,Minor 75%(put them on=Accident waiting to happen)**
**hence it's wise to keep them training untill match fit of say 70%fitness**

• 90%+fit,10% minor injury,5%Major injury

• 75%+fit,35% minor injury,15%Major injury

• 50%fit ,let the player recover/training only

P.S. 6 Manager's

[budist]

you know what 10% means

means from 10 players one will be injured. So you will have one player injured per match

maybe 0.01%
that will be more relevant