From The Pavilion

Currently, players in national teams are unable to play for their regular club while on tour, and the club receives money as compensation for their absence.

This poll is asking, in principle, would you support a change so that players on national duty are able to play for their club? The compensation would be removed, and international games would not affect the player's fatigue level for club games.

If you vote "Unsure," then please post explaining why you're unsure. All opinions are welcomed, but please be respectful. This is not a binding poll - I'm posting this as a user, not an admin - but I'm hoping it will give us as admins a fair idea of the community's view on this issue.

The context for the poll is this topic discussing international cricket, feel free to read that discussion and weigh in if you'd like to.

I think it works nicely the way it is currently.

I voted unsure/no opinion.

On the one hand, losing your players to national teams can be a pain but you do get compensation which can be very useful. Also you may lose players to national teams but your opponents might lose even more players or more important players. I generally see it as just an extra challenge as a manager and just part of the game. I mean there are other things in the season which can cause just as much of a problem such as teams choosing weakened sides due to concentrating on the MKMC or towards the end of the season when they've already achieved what the want and decide to give experience to youngsters; all just part of the game and something you have to deal with as a manager.

On the other hand, if national players can play for their club too then it would help managers unhappy with losing players and people would then have to adapt to not having the compensation. Some would say it's less realistic that you could have the same player playing in two places at once but there are plenty of unrealistic things in the game that are there to make the game better. Would it reduce the managerial challenge? Possibly, although some teams might find it more difficult if they're relying on big squads to compete on all fronts or might have more trouble finding a way to give younger players experience when they would normally play in the matches where national players were unavailable.

Either way, I'm not really bothered; I'll just face the managerial challenges that the game throws at me.

I also voted unsure/no opinion.

Agree completely with what Spark has said above.

Further to that, I see it in two ways:
1. Allowing players to play both club and nation would cheapen national competitions to be glorified friendlies in my opinion.
2. As a national manager I have seen the pain (directly and indirectly) that touring players can do to a club's league chances.

International games don't impact a players club fatigue level. Only form is impacted.

boscorp wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 08, 2025 7:25 am

I think it works nicely the way it is currently.

I voted no, I believe national side players should be unavailable for club duties whilst away on a tour. However I do also believe that National players when away on a tour should also be unavailable for that weeks MKMC match. It adds to the realism of player availability for that week.

It does seem like a pretty resounding no at this point, although we’ll give more people time to vote.

I’m one of the yes votes, for what it’s worth. Primarily because I think it would remove the main point of contention between national managers and people who just want to play the game without needing to worry about international cricket, something outside of their control that they have no interest in. It makes life a bit less stressful for everyone. I do get the arguments against it, though, and it’s not a hill I’d die on: if people prefer the status quo, then I’m fine with that.

I voted no.

It is part of management and adds more realism to the game.

If people don't like it then don't develop NAT level or under 20 players and make your life easier.

Very happy to see the current votng, those complaining loudly about being unhappy with the current situation just need to deal with it.

wolfberries wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 09, 2025 11:56 am

Very happy to see the current votng, those complaining loudly about being unhappy with the current situation just need to deal with it.

here he goes again , the bad mouth of the int. Managers.
I not voting in this rigged vote > yet another attempt to prove me wrong about the points I raised . Boscorp tried and failed , so now you run your vote and get the VOTE you DESPERATELY plan for .

CoachKnapovic wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 09, 2025 8:16 am

If people don't like it then don't develop NAT level or under 20 players and make your life easier.

The main issue with this is sometimes teams will develop a player who turns out to be NAT or U20 level without necessarily intending to do so. Granted, this happens more often for U20 than NAT due to how academies work. But as it is, managers who don't want the complication of managing a national player need to actively avoid buying a player who's too good, and sell off their best youths. This is pretty unfun, and is also difficult to predict because someone not taking an interest in international games doesn't know what the standard is.

Although it is a management game after all. Having a well rounded side of eleven players to compete successfully in most countries doesn't always require having a national player to lead the side, Experience in youth is a big equalizer if their skills are a bit lacking. It is only a selection of 18 players per country that go on each tour.

AlexD wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 09, 2025 11:18 pm

here he goes again , the bad mouth of the int. Managers.
I not voting in this rigged vote > yet another attempt to prove me wrong about the points I raised . Boscorp tried and failed , so now you run your vote and get the VOTE you DESPERATELY plan for .

I see you're still trolling

wolfberries wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 10, 2025 2:46 pm

AlexD wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 09, 2025 11:18 pm

here he goes again , the bad mouth of the int. Managers.
I not voting in this rigged vote > yet another attempt to prove me wrong about the points I raised . Boscorp tried and failed , so now you run your vote and get the VOTE you DESPERATELY plan for .

I see you're still trolling

See that idiot is keeping a fine image for International managers !

Worse still an international manager has been found cheating did this to me >
I have just been made aware of What Fgrenyu did on the Forum .
Copied my quote , then deleted my actual post and inserted his own words . That is disgraceful a form of cheating , he needs to be KICKED OUT

Challanger wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 10, 2025 5:33 pm

wolfberries wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 10, 2025 2:46 pm

AlexD wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 09, 2025 11:18 pm

here he goes again , the bad mouth of the int. Managers.
I not voting in this rigged vote > yet another attempt to prove me wrong about the points I raised . Boscorp tried and failed , so now you run your vote and get the VOTE you DESPERATELY plan for .

I see you're still trolling

See that idiot is keeping a fine image for International managers !

Worse still an international manager has been found cheating did this to me >
I have just been made aware of What Fgrenyu did on the Forum .
Copied my quote , then deleted my actual post and inserted his own words . That is disgraceful a form of cheating , he needs to be KICKED OUT

It gets even worse now I and 2 of my friends now dicover we are assistans to INDIA manager ???
Manager Fgrenyu
Assistants: This manager is a Pavilion Member.KarlWepener
This manager is a Pavilion Member.Challanger ]
This manager is a Pavilion Member.AlexD

How this has been activated is very suspisious....this can not be done by a manager ? ...