retired_mariceli

Apologies if this question has been raised before, as I presume it must have been.

What is the actual affect of a player being unhappy? I've just completed a succesful season where three players were unhappy throughout it (two because they wanted to play for a bigger club, and one because he wasn't first choice keeper). I just ignored their unhappiness, and as far as I could tell, the unhappiness didn't affect their form. Even the reserve keeper played well when he came in for several weeks due to injury.

Or am I wrong in thinking it didn't affect their form. In other words, would they have played even better if they weren't unhappy?

I'd be interested to know how other react to a player being unhappy.

retired_topsgt13

maybe it sounds stupid, but this happens to me too... when the palyers are unhappy they seem to play better=))) don't know why... maybe they want to prove somethin'

retired_rotert

I find it depends on their reasons for being unhappy, and also their professionalism. If they're homesick or dislike the manager they tend to perform poorly. For reasons of wanting to move to a bigger club, they probably aren't THAT unhappy with you, and love playing - they just think they're better than you. If you win something they'll probably sign a new deal and stay for a bit longer.

Team morale is more important than individuals' when it comes to performances.

retired_mariceli

Are people agreeing then that, generally speaking, unhappiness doesn't normally affect performances?

Mikey JS

I find it does affect performances. If the player is transfer listed he might be "Determined to prove himself", in which case he might play well for a while, but as a rule, if they're not happy with you they will start underperforming. Your only option is to give them a new contract or sell them.

I have proof of this. I bought Van der Vaart once and he was astonishingly good. Then I quit the game for some reason and started again, at the beginning of the season after a few games he said he was unhappy because I did not fine Fabregas when he got sent off - something to do with worrying about my lack of discipline.

He then went on to play like a spoiled **** bag for over a year until I managed to get him to signed a new contract the following season. It was ridiculous that he should still be unhappy for over a year because of this incident that had nothing to do with him, but he was and his performances suffered.

retired_cschultz

I don't think it's a simple yes or no question. It seems to depend on why the player is unhappy, how long he's been unhappy, what you have said and done about it, their squad status, and their character.

I had a 4th striker who wasn't seeing much playing time and became unhappy. Then because of injuries he suddenly started seeing much more playing time and was a goal scoring machine, however, as soon as he lost his unhappiness, he couldn't score to save his life.

On the other hand, I had a back-up DC who became unhappy when I signed another DC because he was worried about his squad position. I assured him his position was safe and made sure to keep giving him the same playing time for the next month. But, he stayed unhappy and played horribly.

So, I think the answer to the question is: it depends.

retired_mariceli

But on what?

retired_rotert

But on what? </BLOCKQUOTE>

On WHY the player is unhappy.
On HOW unhappy he is.
On how professional he is.
And how many other players are also unhappy.

retired_bull

Unhappiness tends to not affect my players' performances, although, they're usually unhappy because I don't play them, and I don't play them because they're crap.

I tend to get rid of unhappy players to avoid upsetting the rest of the team, and to avoid the annoying media messages that "X player is unhappy".

No one is worth more than <STRIKE>the club</STRIKE> me.