Should SI Bring the Arrows Back?

I've posted a couple of threads about this on the tactics forum recently here and here.

I wanted to bring the issue to the attention of GD to get some opinions regarding the fact that FM09, in my opinion, lacks some pretty significant tactical options now that the arrows have been removed.

Essentially, it is my understanding that the arrows were removed from FM09 for the following reasons:

1) Misunderstandings – people didn’t know what they did and how they worked.

2) Exploits and cheats – people liked to use ridiculous arrows to beat the match engine and then became frustrated when they didn’t win games with their incredible match breaking tactic that resulted in unusual match statistics. Thus, they made unfair accusations of a unsophisticated, cheating AI.

3) Unrealistic football – people argued that it didn’t look realistic and made the players act like robots.

Reason 1 indicates that there was a need for a clearer system to achieve the same ends and perhaps one with more possibilities for instructing a player to take up a position with or without the ball.

Reason 2 hasn’t been solved by the demise of the arrows. There are still plenty of exploitative and ‘cheating’ tactics on the forums, particularly using unusual formations or by using overloading instructions.

Reason 3 may have a truth, but it could be countered that we now have an unrealistic lack of tactical choices and/or that we have a very complicated and unsatisfactory method of achieving such tactical choices.

The big tactical problem I see on FM09 at the moment is the lack of ability to reflect real life team shape and real life team positions. It could be said that it is also difficult to translate some real life formations into FM.

Some narrow formations, which require certain players to take up a middle ground between a central MC position and the wide midfield positions, are now compromised by the lack of sarrows. Think of Chelsea's diamond midfield on Saturday or Mourinho's diamond midfield at Inter. The players in the middle of the park are not just MCs but hybrid MC and wide players. They play wider than MCs and narrower than MR/Ls but are often wide midfielders by trade.

The arrow problem can equally be applied to the 4-3-3 formation. In FM08, you could play with AMR/AML farrowed to the FR/FL positions. You could therefore play a striker in the winger role and he would still play well due to moving into a secondary position as a striker. In FM09 (and, we presume, FM10) this is not possible.

The 4-3-3 does not seem to be realistic because you cannot make the 'wingers' play like makeshift strikers. You cannot get them to take on a hybrid position, to take on the middle ground between the flank and the forward positions, which would be more accurate of real life.

There are other systems to which this can be applied, such as the 4-2-3-1 (either to the holding midfielders or to the three attacking midfielders/makeshift strikers/wingers etc.) and some other narrow formations where certain players need to play between two positions and take a middle ground.

There are also positional issues here, in my opinion. I give a few examples below where the positional attribute falls down:

- A wide midfielder being played as a side midfielder in a formation with a narrow three in midfield. He isn't a central midfield by trade but he needs to be given that position rating to perform there. With a sarrow or combination of a farrow and a sarrow, he can play well due to moving into his secondary position when the team is in possession.

- As above, a forward in a 4-3-3 has to have either AMR/AML positional rating. Whereas many attacking 4-3-3s would appear to play with three forwards, many of whom do not have the AMR/AML positional attribute.

My view is that this really needs looking at and so I am starting this thread to attempt to gauge opinion on the forums.

Ideally, in my personal opinion, I would like to see the complete reintroduction of arrows. It would probably be for the best if they were just short arrows to stop the engine being exploited by the long arrows. I personally think that it is realistic that a player might be asked to have an 'on the ball' or an 'off the ball' secondary position. It doesn't have to be arrows but I do think that something needs to be done to add greater functionality to the tactical options.

Please let me know your opinions.

Regards,

C.

I think reintroduction of sarrows, or something that does the same thing on a slider (individual width settings?) is essential in order to allow players to accurately reproduce a lot of real life tactical ideas.

I had originally intended to include a poll on this thread in order to gauge opinion on the forum.

Would it be possible for a moderator to perhaps add one for me?

The question to be: Should SI Bring the Arrows Back?

The answers to be: 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) I think that SI should introduce an alternative system to achieve similar effects - please state what it is on the thread.

I'd be very grateful if someone could do this. Not to worry if this is not possible.

Many thanks,

C.

I think they should be in the game but alot of people see them as game breaking like the Kimz tactic on FM08 I think it was. I personally miss the ones that would allow you to have an AML or AMR go to the ST position. I tihnk there is no chance of them ever being put back in the game, like SnakeXe said maybe individual width settings would be good?

Well 3) already exists if you allow for a couple of shortcomings.

Arrows went because they held back the match engine by forcing players to make unrealistic movements not controlled by their attributes. This was corrected and the arrows superceded by player instructions (Although slightly lacking).

Should they come back? Definately not in the old form.

Could SI introduce something new in a similar vein that would aid the user - possibly.

The arrows should return. If people want to use them as exploits that's their choice. I wouldn't personally use them as exploits, instead it would make me feel more in control of my team and tactics.

I totally agree with the arrows idea. The fact that people could exploit it is a weakness of the game, which in my opinion could have been easily corrected by adjusting factors such as stamina and condition if players moved too far out of their positions (but hey, I'm not a programmer).

I liked the fact that I could tell my fullback to move forward. Okay you can still do that.

But I liked, as well, to play 3-5-2, and asked my two DM's to cover the wingbacks position, say, or my centreback to go upfront. I remember also a few years back, when the great Bobby Robson managed Porto, he would ask Fernando Couto to go join the attack as an extra striker, obviously he only did that with 10/5 minutes to go otherwise Couto would have died or have to be Superman, to force a result with a great risky move.

I also liked to play a narrow 4-2-3-1 formation with the two AMR/AML going wide. Or as well, a wide 4-2-3-1 and asking the wingers to join the striker, by creating extra numbers. This is not an exploit, it reflects real life.

Most people see wingers as a Joe Cole or a A.Young, and they are indeed classic wingers, but think of Henry at Barcelona, he's always joining Eto'o upfront, or a few years back when Saviola played wide right. Think of Rooney, hardly keeps still, or fixed on the left, nor does he go only forward and back, very rarely you seem him go up to the line. It's crazy, they've oversimplified the tactics.

Instead of arrows, or sliders (which are probably even worse), you could have a drop-down menu on the player instructions asking a player to join the attack, or go central, or cover the wings, or go wide, etc, etc. These could change on whatever position you are given a player instructions to prevent unreasonable tactics and exploitation. But then exploitation is always about gaining an advantage so that you can win, is that really so wrong?

Or, to go even further back, SI could bring back the on/off dual tactics screen.:o

P

What do the arrows do at the moment? I've never quite understood the new version's arrows...

I want the arrows back since then you could set the damn players to run where you want to rather in the general direction of where you want to.

Or, to go even further back, SI could bring back the on/off dual tactics screen.:o

I still think that's the most realistic approach to player positioning of any SI game to date

What do the arrows do at the moment? I've never quite understood the new version's arrows...

I think they basically allow the player to make forward runs ahead of the ball. Support players will be about level with the ball and no forward runs means they'll try to stay behind the ball.

The arrows in this version certainly confused me. I'm sure that previously the forward arrows and the player tactic 'make forward runs' were different. Now they seem to be the same thing

I had originally intended to include a poll on this thread in order to gauge opinion on the forum.

Would it be possible for a moderator to perhaps add one for me?

The question to be: Should SI Bring the Arrows Back?

The answers to be: 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) I think that SI should introduce an alternative system to achieve similar effects - please state what it is on the thread.

I'd be very grateful if someone could do this. Not to worry if this is not possible.

Many thanks,

C.

Just worked out that I can add the poll myself. :o

Please vote and discuss the points in the opening post.

Many thanks,

C.

makes the football unrealistic imo, and allows for cheats to break the match engine

Good riddance to them. Matches play more realistically since they have been taken away, plus they added even more confusion to an already complicated system of sliders.

With the inclusion of a tactics wizard I want to see extended options for getting layers to do similar things that they could do with the use of arrows, more specifically getting wingers to cut inside

The thing that nobody yet has spoke about is the fact that the players movement takes a more robotic form when the arrows are in place. As far as I know, the second an attack began, the players would automatically move into a position, with complete disregard to how the attack was developing Now, to me, that is an incredibly unrealistic approach to tactical play. My manager has never said to me 'Oi, Peter, when we get the ball, just run about 30 yards up the pitch... no it doesn't matter what else is going on you pillock'. The players mindset should change and they would look to take up a more attacking position, but would base that on where the ball is and where the players are.

Basically, the problem is what goes on underneath. The game should take into account many things when determining what a player does with a farrow of any length.

1) The players current position

2) The position of team-mates

3) The position of the opposition players

The old arrow system didn't take any of those into account.

So should it come back in it's old form? Visually, yes it should, but the underlying mechanics have to change dramatically. The Sarrows should never have been removed though, as, while people didn't know what they meant, their function is a nescessity in many tactics.

With the inclusion of a tactics wizard I want to see extended options for getting players to do similar things that they could do with the use of arrows, more specifically getting wingers to cut inside

Wingers cut inside? Forwards/Mids use channels? etc? all possible with the new tactics wizard in FML atm.

The game still gets exploited but not that effectively - every one of the tactics in the tactics forum has at least a few people complaining that it doesn't work for them. If the corner exploit was fixed, then I'm sure that number would go up - there are no Diablo tactics being created.

If you give your wingers farrows and free roles then they get into the box and play like strikers all the time - at least, mine do (and they're not even AMs, but a MR and ML).

Free roles would fix most of the problems that you are complaining about. I play people notionally "out of position" all the time, with Free roles on, because they generally look for space in their normal position.

Play a ST with FWR often in the AML/R role and he will play like a ST.

Play a side CM who can play LM and give him a free role, and he will operate down the left a lot of the time.

In a 3 man midfield, besides, the LM and RM won't be playing like wingers, so all you really want is more width on the slider - if you use man marking then they'll draw together again when in defence.

I've managed to overcome every thing I would have wanted to acheive with a sarrow through PPMs and instructions. It may have taken me longer - which is the only argument I can see for sarrows - but it's always proved doable. The arguments against Sarrows have already been given players shouldn't move to positions because they're dragged by an invisible hand (something that the farrows still do a little, as I have found whilst trying to create the Libero position). The fewer arrows on the tactic, the more naturally it flows.

Last season, Rooney, a FC operating out wide, didn't sprint from aml to st as soon as the team got possession, ignoring play.

An AML with free role and attacking mentality, and FWR often should do what he did - surge forward, and look to slide into space between the FB and CB should it become available.

The thing that nobody yet has spoke about is the fact that the players movement takes a more robotic form when the arrows are in place. As far as I know, the second an attack began, the players would automatically move into a position, with complete disregard to how the attack was developing Now, to me, that is an incredibly unrealistic approach to tactical play. My manager has never said to me 'Oi, Peter, when we get the ball, just run about 30 yards up the pitch...

As far as I am aware, it was slightly more dynamic than you are describing.

Also, I wouldn't want the long arrows back. I think the short arrows would be adequate and I feel that it is realistic that a manager would say to a wide midfielder, for instance, 'push up into a winger position when we get possession'. Or, to a winger in a 4-3-3, 'move up into a forward position when we get possession' and so on and so forth.

So should it come back in it's old form? Visually, yes it should, but the underlying mechanics have to change...

I wouldn't disagree entirely. I'd just be happy to have what I see as a vital tactical instruction back in the game.

Regards,

C.

I prefer FM without the arrows. I do sometimes think they'd be useful in a narrow midfield, but FM2008 tactics were frustrating for me and I blame the arrows partly as I got lazy and relied on a 4-3-3 system with the wingers having arrows to the striker position.

Without the arrows my team struggled. With them I won 34 out of 38 league matches with Juventus and won the Champions League. Then I started another save game, and the tactic was nothing near as successful.

If they can get the arrows right and realistic then I suppose they'd be alright, but I'm more than happy without them.

As far as I am aware, it was slightly more dynamic than you are describing.

Also, I wouldn't want the long arrows back. I think the short arrows would be adequate and I feel that it is realistic that a manager would say to a wide midfielder, for instance, 'push up into a winger position when we get possession'. Or, to a winger in a 4-3-3, 'move up into a forward position when we get possession' and so on and so forth.

I wouldn't disagree entirely. I'd just be happy to have what I see as a vital tactical instruction back in the game.

Regards,

C.

You would be wrong, they did exactly what Peter described hence they had to go.

Didn't we have a 500 page discussion about arrows not that long ago :confused:

I prefer the way it is now, it is much more realistic

You would be wrong, they did exactly what Peter described hence they had to go.

Didn't we have a 500 page discussion about arrows not that long ago :confused:

500 posts, you mean?

Well, that was when we didn't know how the game would play without them, now we do so we have a new discussion.

Also, I don't think the Farrows were more dynamic than that.

Wingers cut inside? Forwards/Mids use channels? etc? all possible with the new tactics wizard in FML atm.

Then I repeat, good riddance to arrows

The game still gets exploited but not that effectively - every one of the tactics in the tactics forum has at least a few people complaining that it doesn't work for them. If the corner exploit was fixed, then I'm sure that number would go up - there are no Diablo tactics being created.

I think this argument about exploitation seems fairly pointless to me anyway. I don't care if people cheat. I've never tried to exploit the engine with one of these cheats because I just don't see the fun or the point. If others want to, it doesn't bother me.

Most of the exploits using arrows utilised the long farrows, which I don't particularly want in the game anyway.

I do not find it unrealistic that a player could be asked to play in a secondary position, either on or off the ball, and I do not find it unrealistic that a player could be asked to take the middle ground between two positions on the field. A huge amount of flexibility has been lost in my view with the demise of the arrows.

If you give your wingers farrows and free roles then they get into the box and play like strikers all the time - at least, mine do (and they're not even AMs, but a MR and ML).

I knew that this point would arise regarding free roles. I have two answers to this. First of all, the free role dictates that the player will roam into space and does not necessarily achieve the effect I have outlined in the opening post. Furthermore, what if the players in question do not have good free role ratings. What if roaming into space is not what you want them to do but you just want them to advance a fill in another role or play in the middle ground between two positions.

In a 3 man midfield, besides, the LM and RM won't be playing like wingers, so all you really want is more width on the slider - if you use man marking then they'll draw together again when in defence.

Again, this does not achieve the effects I talk about in the opening post and the last comment regarding man marking is certainly not how it works at all.

The arguments against Sarrows have already been given players shouldn't move to positions because they're dragged by an invisible hand...

No, but they do look to move into certain positions when directed to by their coach or manager.

Regards,

C.

To those who do not like the arrows and believe that the game is better without them, how would you achieve some of the tactical effects detailed in the opening post?

Or do you perhaps believe that some new functionality does need to be added to replace arrows but still introduce some level of control regarding secondary positions etc.?

I was hoping that this discussion might be a bit more interesting than a 'you would be wrong ... they had to go' type of response. Was I expecting too much of GD?

Regards,

C.

This is the first version I've been completely unable to play due to this new tactics system being so damned vague. I liked directing runs for certain players, especially if it meant I could exploit a weakness in my opponent. Something I can't do with FM09

I've said yes fwiw.

To those who do not like the arrows and believe that the game is better without them, how would you achieve some of the tactical effects detailed in the opening post?

I don't think you can. There may well be methods that can provide you with results similar to what you are after but they will have major implications. I think peoples biggest issues were the way they played out, which, for farrows, was pretty poor. I think if they made the players reactions more human-like, then they would want them back in.

Or do you perhaps believe that some new functionality does need to be added to replace arrows but still introduce some level of control regarding secondary positions etc.?

While I think an alternative system would be great, I struggle to think of something that could explain what you want to do more than the arrows do. Just needs a bit more description to go with it to tell you exacly what is going on.

I was hoping that this discussion might be a bit more interesting than a 'you would be wrong ... they had to go' type of response. Was I expecting too much of GD?

A good way to appease both camps is have a off ball run direction. It'll kind of act like the arrows but instead of a mindless run the player will make a run in the directions you specify when the opportunity arises. Players make runs now all we'd be doing is encourage them to make specific runs more often.

For example I can tell my winger to push up when we have the ball with a forward arrow but then with the directional run arrow I can tell him to make more diagonal runs into the box.

Just to clarify, the winger will hold his role on the wing but then make a run hoping the midfielder will pick him out with a through ball.

To those who do not like the arrows and believe that the game is better without them, how would you achieve some of the tactical effects detailed in the opening post?

Or do you perhaps believe that some new functionality does need to be added to replace arrows but still introduce some level of control regarding secondary positions etc.?

I was hoping that this discussion might be a bit more interesting than a 'you would be wrong ... they had to go' type of response. Was I expecting too much of GD?

Regards,

C.

I argued at the time that we needed more control of lateral movement and others seemed to agree. From what people have said about FML this has been covered and I would expect the new wizard to be a big improvement in how we communicate with the engine.

The biggest problem with arrows were their robotic nature, no manager expects players to make the same movement all the time in RL and neither should we in FM. We should be giving more general instructions which players adapt to depending on their attributes. This have been achieved with the sliders and should become clearer with the wizard.

Players playing in two positions has been discussed before and although I do agree to some extent there is nothing wrong with the way FM represents this - The positions in the tactic screen should be viewed as the defensive position with the player instructions helping the player achieve the attacking position (allowing for what is happening on the pitch).

EDIT

One of the main areas that is difficult is wingers cutting inside or staying wide. TBH this is down to the players personality and attributes - you need to watch the match to understand the player. Young for instance on the left virtually always cuts inside but put Milner there (with the same orders) and he stays wider much more often getting crosses in.

I don't see the need for them really, too much confusion over what they really mean and how they should be used. And what Kriss said, FM 2010 will probably have more options, based on what FML has.

At times I think they also made people feel more in control when they really weren't. They didn't do what people thought they did.

TBh i like th esystem with the sliders, but i do miss the arrows because often as stated, you cant get certain effects anymore, often when i play a narrow midfield i want the outer CM's to cover the wings, but with these arrows you just cant get that effect. the best way i've found of replicating some effects is to put the players there.

I never understood how to exploit the engine, but as people have said the old arrows were flawed. If the tactics wizard is a good compramise (or improvment) then i welcome it.

On another note, has anyone ever been able to sucessfully create the "libero" position?

Cougar2010 - I understand your points regarding limitation but how would you solve the tactical issues from the OP without giving some direction via an arrow system? I think we can take it for granted that if arrows returned, or a similar system was introduced, that it would need to be improved, need to more dynamic and need more fluidity. I personally feel that it is realistic that a manager should be able to give more direction to a player to get into an adjacent position or play the middle ground. I also feel that this is especially relevant to adjacent positions such as DM & MC & AM, or AMR, AML, FC. In my view, Bardock's idea is along the right lines and 'short' arrows should be reintroduced to give direction rather than 'control' as it is perceived the previous arrows did. Right now, we have no way to give such direction, and that is a huge limitation, especially in the examples given in the opening post.

Regards,

C.

I think this argument about exploitation seems fairly pointless to me anyway. I don't care if people cheat. I've never tried to exploit the engine with one of these cheats...

Most of the exploits using arrows utilised the long farrows, which I don't particularly want in the game anyway.

It's not about intentional cheating though. It's that the AI could simply be too stupid to cope with unconventional use of the arrows, even if you were actually just attempting to implement a plausible tactic. Without the long arrows this might not be so much of a problem, but still.

I do not find it unrealistic that a player could be asked to play in a secondary position, either on or off the ball, and I do not find it unrealistic that a player could be asked to take the middle ground between two positions on the field. A huge amount of flexibility has been lost in my view with the demise of the arrows.

If you could give an example (premiership for preference - I don't regularly watch lower league) of someone who is asked to play two positions, I'd be grateful, because I tried to think of one (the Rooney example) - and I know that I've used such a position in FM 09 tactics without any issues. I just don't see it as hard to implement. With closing down and mentality changes (and team width changes). two people playing AMR don't necessarily stand in the same place.

I knew that this point would arise regarding free roles. I have two answers to this. First of all, the free role dictates that the player will roam into space and does not necessarily achieve the effect I have outlined in the opening post. Furthermore, what if the players in question do not have good free role ratings. What if roaming into space is not what you want them to do but you just want them to advance a fill in another role or play in the middle ground between two positions.

For me, an AM (R,L or C) with a forward arrow turns up in the ST position. Maybe it's because we're using vastly different tactics, but if I give a player FWR, he runs ahead of the ball - towards the box, more often than not. (Maybe it's the free roles, maybe it's my formation's low width)

Again, this does not achieve the effects I talk about in the opening post and the last comment regarding man marking is certainly not how it works at all.

Please don't say "is not how it works" without an explanation of how it does - it kind of derails an otherwise constructive discussion.

This is my formation in attack

SW

CB CB

DM DM

RM CM LM

AM

ST

With specific man marking, this is my formation in defence

SW

CB CB

WB WB

CM CM CM/LM

AM

ST

I have my DMs marking the opposition wingers, but since this left me over-run in the centre of midfield, I set one, or both of my wingers to mark a CM - giving me more presence in the centre.

The only annoying thing is that you cannot pre-set specific man marking.

I just realised that I did not say "specific" in my post - so my bad. But even just with tight marking and enough closing down, wide midfielders do come inside and pick up a free man.

No, but they do look to move into certain positions when directed to by their coach or manager.

This I think is more of a PPMs issue. I think the PPMs should be better implemented (and less prone to rejection), but they are an effective means to get your players to act unconventionally for their position.

If the "hugs line" and ""cuts in" PPMs were active and available would you still have issues with the role of wide attacker? You'd be able to influence how they play, but not have the robotic implications of sarrows.

"Gets into opposition area" helps wingers play like strikers, not sure if you can teach it though.

The runs players get told to make IRL are runs into where the space is being created (often between the CB and FB) so perhaps this is why I find that Free role works for me, when it should perhaps be as vague as you imply. My play runs through the middle, so when my wingers are trying to make themselves available, they tend to make diagonal runs and are regularly put through by my MC, holding up the ball in wait. They sometimes get the ball out wide ( as do Rooney, Kuyt, Robinho, Messi etc, the players that come to mind who play wide then cut in) but then they lay it off and head inwards.

I think the issue is one of control over the players. They are not robots and the ability to entirely map out how they are to play from game to game just does not seem realistic to me. If I recall correctly from reading previous posts of yours, you watch a lot of lower league football - so I would have thought that you'd have seen even more evidence of this at lower skill levels.

A player might think "the manager's told me to get into the box often." - that's a PPM issue in my mind. The Farrows give imprecise control - " try and get forward," but the type of winger who heads in (Joe Cole, Messi, Ronaldo) generally does not switch the next game and play equally well as a conventional winger.

As well as PPMs, there's positional training.

Free role players tend (IMO) to flit between positions that they know - so when I play my back-up striker - who is a "competent" winger - out wide, then he turns up at ST constantly.

Kuyt came to Liverpool as a pure ST and evolved into his current role, Ronaldo came to Man Utd as a pure winger and evolved into a new role - but it took time: he wasn't one thing one week and another thing the next week. That's why I think expanded PPMs are the way to go.

It's not about intentional cheating though. It's that the AI could simply be too stupid to cope with unconventional use of the arrows, even if you were actually just attempting to implement a plausible tactic. Without the long arrows this might not be so much of a problem, but still.

Quite.

If you could give an example (premiership for preference - I don't regularly watch lower league) of someone who is asked to play two positions, I'd be grateful, because I tried to think of one (the Rooney example)

There are several examples are in the opening post.

I personally feel that it is realistic that a manager should be able to give more direction to a player to get into an adjacent position or play the middle ground between two positions. The key word here is directions and I am not interested in having a discussion about how realistic the old arrow system was. I'm looking for the ability to use the same principles to give certain direction to my players.

Please don't say "is not how it works" without an explanation of how it does - it kind of derails an otherwise constructive discussion.

Man marking does not work to 'draw [players] together again when in defence' as you suggested above.

If the "hugs line" and ""cuts in" PPMs were active and available would you still have issues with the role of wide attacker? You'd be able to influence how they play, but not have the robotic implications of sarrows.

As a manager, I should be able to give tactical direction to my players on match day. How well they play should depend upon attributes, competence, training direction (i.e. PPMs etc.) and so on.

I think the issue is one of control over the players. They are not robots and the ability to entirely map out how they are to play from game to game just does not seem realistic to me.

Not asking for this. I'm asking for the ability to give direction to encourage players to switch into adjacent positions or to play the middle ground between two positions.

If I recall correctly from reading previous posts of yours, you watch a lot of lower league football - so I would have thought that you'd have seen even more evidence of this at lower skill levels.

If you read my descriptions of my attempts to recreate 4-3-3 and 4-4-2 systems played my favourite club during the last two seasons (they are linked in the opening post) you'll see the kind of issues I have currently and why I am looking to give more direction to my players. At the moment, the options are too limited and I cannot achieve the effects that I want. I was better able to do this with the arrows in previous FMs.

I agree with your comments about PPMs by the way. I just feel there needs to be tactical, as well as training, direction. We both seem to agree that what we have now is limited anyway.

Regards,

C.

I voted for an alternate option.

We should have drag down menus in player instructions for: cutting in, go out wide, or stay in position.

I would also like options for Defense Width, Midfield Width, and Attacker Width. That would be useful if you wanted your fullbacks to stay near the line and your wide midfielders to stay closer to the MCs for example.

Man marking does not work to 'draw [players] together again when in defence' as you suggested above.

Tried to explain myself better, clearly with no results: I meant that if you adjust their marking assignments and closing down, you can have them defend like CMs whilst still attacking like wide mids (tried to show that in my post).

Not asking for this. I'm asking for the ability to give direction to encourage players to switch into adjacent positions or to play the middle ground between two positions.

I still think you're pretty much describing free roles.

Free role players do switch to the adjacent position. A Free role AML with forward runs will head into a zone around the left-hand side of the penalty area - the ST's territory. He won't turn up at AMR just because he has free role, and he won't ignore his FWR instructions and turn up at MC because of it either.

It's only central players who can turn up anywhere if you give them free roles.

As for mid positions: aren't you really just asking for extra position slots on the tactics screen?

If you read my descriptions of my attempts to recreate 4-3-3 and 4-4-2 systems played my favourite club during the last two seasons (they are linked in the opening post) you'll see the kind of issues I have currently and why I am looking to give more direction to my players. At the moment, the options are too limited and I cannot achieve the effects that I want. I was better able to do this with the arrows in previous FMs.

I replied to your second link at the time - I'm the last post in that thread - so see the bottom of that thread for my opinion on that one.

I agree with your comments about PPMs by the way. I just feel there needs to be tactical, as well as training, direction. We both seem to agree that what we have now is limited anyway.

Well sure - I don't think anyone can argue that the ME is a perfect simulation of football, so it's always going to be limited (partly because the AI has to be able to use it too, and until Skynet arrives, the AI will be dumber even than football players.)

On Free Role's generally wingers will drift in and central players drift wide, but you can't control exactly how they do so. I think this is a realistic limitation of the manager's control, you think this is a programming limitation. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

It would take time, but if you played around with mentalities for Free role players in the AMR/L FR/L or FRC/FLC slots, I'm sure you'd be able to create what you're looking for.

If there were a way to make this easier, that would be great because we shouldn't have to waste time struggling to translate footballing ideas into fm instructions, but I think it is possible to do, if time-consuming, in the current model. I guess the point of the "tactics creator" is to be able to do stuff like this with one click.

I don't agree with the type of winger playing being completely controlled by tactics instead of training because I think it is a big change for a winger to make - not one that flits from game to game.

Ronaldo started as a conventional winger and then started being used to break inwards and get into the area, but that switch didn't happen overnight. Similarly, if I wanted to use Messi as a conventional winger, it would go against his natural style of play - PPMs are a way of reflecting that.

Tactics should be able to get you close - and, sceptical though you are, free roles do get you close - but for precision it should be a matter of player development: PPMs

Also: it is a common misconception, as far as I can see, that a player who's perfect for the role he's being asked to play will do badly if his nominal position is not one he's familiar with. I play with a Libero, for instance, and with the scarcity of sweepers who can dribble and pass, I just played DMs in the role until I had them trained to SW, and they did fine (When the sweeper in a 3-man back line has a bad day, you notice).

If it's only the position that you want them to defend in then it's even better because their free role (yes, I said it yet again) will encourage them to head back to their natural position - creating something like the effect you are searching for: someone half-way between a ST and an AMR/L

If you have your initial attempts at the tactics you mention and could upload them, I'd be interested to have a bash at getting them working as desired. Not sure how close I'd come, but I'd be interested to try.

No, at least not in the 08 form. As I only really play online with other people, to me it's critical for the match engine to contain the least amount of exploit tactics as possible. Right now the corner kick expl... oh right, that has nothing to do with arrows.

Anyway, I'm fairly happy with the current tactics system, I've mostly managed to implement any tactical options I've wanted to. My Regensburg team play a 4-2-3-1 tactic with wing forwards cutting inside when they have space available to them and it's working perfectly. Even the AMC gets good ratings and scores a bunch, which was the hardest thing for me to get working at all.

i voted no, simply because from the point of view that you know there are less ways that you can exploit/get exploited by the match engine.

This is how the corner bug got introduced. Granted, the feature was there for many versions, but somehow the exploit was there for 2 games in a row (08 and 09)

I would like arrows to be included, but I think SI would probably meddle with it too much and it would be worse than FM08.

I hope SI finish the job they started - get rid of the arrows completely.

This is what was done in FML, and as we are getting a similar new tactics UI in FM10 I would expect it to follow that lead. In FML, the players' shirts on the tactics screen are much more mobile, moving up or down, narrower and wider, etc - depending on the slider settings. It's a nice effect and works well. If that came across to FM10 I would be a happy man

Crouchy, you are poiting exactly at the places where the old arrows allowed us to do something which now can hardly (if at all) be achieved with the new system. Or only at the expense of unwanted side effects.

However, as it was pointed out in the many and long threads about why they went, the negative effects of the arrows much outweighed the positive effects (whose lack in turn now is the negative effect of their removal).

So I ticked the last box in the poll and shall as requested also provide my idea about what should be done.

What I would like to see are two new personal instructions for players like the following:

1. Move position (drop down: in possession/ when defending) to (drop down: positions...).

The key here is that this instruction should not robotically override all other instructions but also be determined by the attributes of the player, for instance decisions, work rate, teamwork, creativity and so on.

To avoid misuse the positional option could and should be restricted to one position from the common position of the player (like a chess pawn who can move into any direction). An AML would thus only have the options ML, MC, AMC and SC. Also it should have a noticable effect on the match condition and make stamina more important.

This way we would be able to have a 433 with the wingers cutting inside into striker position as well as a 433 becoming a 451 for instance if the wingers move back into a flat midfield line when defending.

At the same time the option would only allow for one of those two settings. Thus an exploit by using both settings in one tactic to create another unrealistic tactic would not be possible.

2. Also, I'd like to see a tick-box which allows players to move wide, like the MCs you mentioned. It might be named "Encourage to move to the flank" and should do what it says. Depending on the attributes of the player, he should then more often than otherwise move to a wider position in cases he feels it's beneficiary.

Setting the team width applies to everyone and that might not be intended at all, so I think this would be an improvement which is needed as right now we cannot give that instruction.

The opposite instruction "Encourage to cut inside" for wingers might actually already do the job for AMR/Ls with forward runs, but still I feel that both options are needed to remove the negative effect of the arrows removal.

Tried to explain myself better, clearly with no results: I meant that if you adjust their marking assignments and closing down, you can have them defend like CMs whilst still attacking like wide mids (tried to show that in my post).

My opinion on this is that it is an extremely complicated system, and not only that but a slightly unrealistic one, in order to achieve basic shape.

I still think you're pretty much describing free roles.

No, I'm not describing free roles. Not even slightly.

I've already answered this. What am I describing is players naturally being directed to move into adjacent positions or play the middle ground between two adjacent positions. That's not what free roles do.

I replied to your second link at the time - I'm the last post in that thread - so see the bottom of that thread for my opinion on that one.

I am grateful for that and I do appreciate your efforts. But with all due respect, your suggestions were: 1) over-complicated, 2) had knock on effects for the rest of the tactic that would have stopped it working in the way that I wanted it to, 3) did not achieve the effect I desired and 4) did not match with what I see in real life.

It's quite possible that your ideas are the only way to bodge up a replication of a real life tactic but that isn't good enough for me.

On Free Role's generally wingers will drift in and central players drift wide, but you can't control exactly how they do so. I think this is a realistic limitation of the manager's control, you think this is a programming limitation. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

But the sort of instances in the opening post do not involve free roles. They involve a manager giving direction to his player as to the sort of positions he wants him to take up on the football pitch. I'm not looking for control here, I'm looking for direction.

If there were a way to make this easier, that would be great because we shouldn't have to waste time struggling to translate footballing ideas into fm instructions, but I think it is possible to do, if time-consuming, in the current model.

I disagree entirely.

I don't agree with the type of winger playing being completely controlled by tactics instead of training ...

I never said this.

You want him only to be directed by training and PPMs. I want him to be directed by tactical instruction, and how well he carried out this tactical instruction depends upon training, competence, experience, attributes and so on. It seems entirely unrealistic to me to only be able to ask a player to 'learn' to do something and then to have to wait until he has learnt the PPM (if he does that at all!)

Also: it is a common misconception, as far as I can see, that a player who's perfect for the role he's being asked to play will do badly if his nominal position is not one he's familiar with.

I don't believe that he will do badly but I do know that he will rarely play to anywhere near his full ability until he is at least accomplished in a position.

If it's only the position that you want them to defend in then it's even better because their free role (yes, I said it yet again)...

First of all, the free role dictates that the player will roam into space and does not necessarily achieve the effect I have outlined so many times in this post. The examples I give in the other two threads and in the opening post involve players who appear to have specific directions to undertake. They are not asked to roam in a free role. Furthermore, what if the players in question do not have good free role ratings? What if roaming into space is not what you want them to do but you just want them to advance a fill in another role or play in the middle ground between two positions? What happens if you are a conservative manager who wants his players to stick fairly rigidly to their assigned positions but you also want to give some direction as stated in the opening post. I won't be repeating this again but free role is not the answer.

Regards,

C.

Overall, I think the game is much better without arrows in general, and I don't really see any need to bring back farrows or barrows, but, as I've said elsewhere, there needs to be some form of individual lateral control, whether sarrows or a width slider.

Crouchy, you are poiting exactly at the places where the old arrows allowed us to do something which now can hardly (if at all) be achieved with the new system.

Quite right.

However, as it was pointed out in the many and long threads about why they went, the negative effects of the arrows much outweighed the positive effects (whose lack in turn now is the negative effect of their removal).

Perhaps I really should have been more specific about this and I see where the confusion has arisen. I didn't necessarily mean that the arrows should return and work exactly the same as they did before. I didn't mean for this to result in a discussion about how realistic the arrows in previous FMs were and so on and so forth.

What I was looking for is a system of direction (not robotic control or whatever) in order to be able to give players instructions as per the opening post.

I'm not interested in debating how the old system worked or whether it was realistic. I'm simply interested in a debate about whether or not you feel that the current tactics system is adequate without the kind of system (like the arrows) that provides the opportunity for specific player direction.

What I would like to see are two new personal instructions for players like the following:

1. Move position (drop down: in possession/ when defending) to (drop down: positions...).

The key here is that this instruction should not robotically override all other instructions but also be determined by the attributes of the player, for instance decisions, work rate, teamwork, creativity and so on.

To avoid misuse the positional option could and should be restricted to one position from the common position of the player (like a chess pawn who can move into any direction). An AML would thus only have the options ML, MC, AMC and SC. Also it should have a noticable effect on the match condition and make stamina more important.

This way we would be able to have a 433 with the wingers cutting inside into striker position as well as a 433 becoming a 451 for instance if the wingers move back into a flat midfield line when defending.

At the same time the option would only allow for one of those two settings. Thus an exploit by using both settings in one tactic to create another unrealistic tactic would not be possible.

2. Also, I'd like to see a tick-box which allows players to move wide, like the MCs you mentioned. It might be named "Encourage to move to the flank" and should do what it says. Depending on the attributes of the player, he should then more often than otherwise move to a wider position in cases he feels it's beneficiary.

Setting the team width applies to everyone and that might not be intended at all, so I think this would be an improvement which is needed as right now we cannot give that instruction.

Both of your ideas are the sort of thing that I am looking for in the game, whether this is provided by an arrows system or a new system involving wizard instructions.

Regards,

C.

I voted yes, but reading this thread has makes me wish I voted for the alternate system option, as it's not the actual arrows I miss, but as some of you have said, it's the desired effect that I want.

The only real issue for me was getting wingers to cut inside without having to make "sacrifices" in their instructions. So if the tactical wizard, which I'm extremely looking forward to providing it works, does have the choice to make wingers cut inside then great.

Perhaps I really should have been more specific about this and I see where the confusion has arisen. I didn't necessarily mean that the arrows should return and work exactly the same as they did before. I didn't mean for this to result in a discussion about how realistic the arrows in previous FMs were and so on and so forth.

What I was looking for is a system of direction (not robotic control or whatever) in order to be able to give players instructions as per the opening post.

I'm not interested in debating how the old system worked or whether it was realistic. I'm simply interested in a debate about whether or not you feel that the current tactics system is adequate without the kind of system (like the arrows) that provides the opportunity for specific player direction.

I guess we just agree then.

My idea seems to me like a way of getting the pros back without the cons. That is with no knowledge of the ME internals though...

First of all, the free role dictates that the player will roam into space and does not necessarily achieve the effect I have outlined so many times in this post. The examples I give in the other two threads and in the opening post involve players who appear to have specific directions to undertake. They are not asked to roam in a free role. Furthermore, what if the players in question do not have good free role ratings? What if roaming into space is not what you want them to do but you just want them to advance a fill in another role or play in the middle ground between two positions? What happens if you are a conservative manager who wants his players to stick fairly rigidly to their assigned positions but you also want to give some direction as stated in the opening post. I won't be repeating this again but free role is not the answer.

Regards,

C.

You keep quoting the same definition of free roles, and to be fair it is the official definition as far as I can tell.

However, I'm talking about the observed effect of free roles in the actual game. You keep telling me that all it does is move players into space, but IN GAME I can see that it has an effect for my team very similar to what you're after.

Furthermore, I play whoever I feel like with free roles and it doesn't seem to have a detrimental effect on performance - and the longer they play with free role, the higher their free role rating goes.

Moreover, someone played out of position who has the right attributes will play just as well as someone who actually is trained in that position.

I play people completely put of position if I think it'll work well - DMs upfront, wingers on the wrong-side, CBs at DM etc - and they play well, they don't perform adequately, butrather they actively play well, and when they are trained to accomplished in a new position, I see no improvement in average rating.

I'll bow out of this convo now. Judging by Ov Collyer's post, SI might have made us both happy with FM10. We'll just have to wait and see.

And my previous request (to have a gander at your tactical attempt ) still stands, if you get a chance to upload it.

The problem with specific control over player movement is that it contradicts attribute and behaviour instruction reaction to match events, which is a hugely noticeable difference between FM08 and FM09.

Positioning of players, fluidity of movement and logical adaption of formations as players move around is hugely improved in FM09. In a basic 4-4-2 one CM with FWR Often will create a front 3 exploiting the 3 key gaps between players in a back four. The other CM with FWR Rare will take up a central position. Giving a Centreback high closing down will see him emerge from the defence while other 3 defenders form up a back 3 and hassle the opponent along the defensive line effectively rotating with the other Centreback before dropping back into the back four as the opponent gets passed to the next zone. Aggressively instructed fullbacks will bomb head of conservatively instructed wingers that will drop deep into space and play as wideplaymakers behind and between the fullback-winger and strikers.

All of this is a vast improvement in the logic and accuracy of movement and adaption to match situations over FM08 that had almost no "match awareness" in comparison. Without the determinism of the Arrows the engine has been freed to maximise natural player movement and natural formation adaption to changes and without the extreme behaviour of the Arrows combined to the vastly improved natural movement and formation adaption it is now possible to create far more variation in basic formations. In terms of Farrows and Barrows deterministic extremism has been replaced by fluidity and finesse. Sarrows have been lost because you cannot improve on their behaviour with fluidity and natural player reaction and natural formation adaption to match events.

Farrows, Barrows and Sarrows are gone. Farrows and Barrows have been replaced with vastly improved fluid positioning, movement and formation adaption of players in response to instructions. Sarrows cannot be replaced by fluid positioning and formation adaption by it's very nature. If the price that has been paid for the improvement in adapting a players positioning, movement and the team formation to the match context is the movement and actions of others is the loss of Farrows and Barrows then there is absolutely no loss at all. If deterministic control over subtleties in player width has been replaced by improved reaction and positioning to space and threats then again there is no functional loss, only a superficial one.

Players no longer bomb forward, sit back, tuck in or move wide at every touch of the ball by a team-mate, but do all this when it is necessary or profitable and allowed by tactical instructions and the current shape of the team. Your 4-4-2 can no longer have six wingers, no strikers and only two men in support, it will always have a proper shape no matter who is in what positions.

So no thanks to the return of the Arrows, they cannot improve this game under any circumstances and can only be detrimental to the improved logic of formation balance and player movement. However there is certainly scope in the longterm for looking carefully into the tactical control of space above and beyond the options that currently exist and creating a system of space manipulation not as a throw-back to obsolete arrows, but the relevent and realistic attack, control and defence of areas and space with compression, extension, overloading and controlling or least influencing the symmetry of formations.

You keep quoting the same definition of free roles, and to be fair it is the official definition as far as I can tell.

However, I'm talking about the observed effect of free roles in the actual game. You keep telling me that all it does is move players into space, but IN GAME I can see that it has an effect for my team very similar to what you're after.

Furthermore, I play whoever I feel like with free roles and it doesn't seem to have a detrimental effect on performance - and the longer they play with free role, the higher their free role rating goes.

Moreover, someone played out of position who has the right attributes will play just as well as someone who actually is trained in that position.

I play people completely put of position if I think it'll work well - DMs upfront, wingers on the wrong-side, CBs at DM etc - and they play well, they don't perform adequately, butrather they actively play well, and when they are trained to accomplished in a new position, I see no improvement in average rating.

Crouchaldinho has an aversion to Free Roles for some reason, possibly because they can be used exactly as you describe.

The critical issue with the Free Role is where the space is and how it interacts with other tactical instructions and situations. Wide players with Free Roles and FWR Often are not going to run to the corner flag or sit deep all game (unlike FM08), but are more likely to make runs around the outside of fullbacks even in a narrow formation. If you get the Winger inside the fullback with your Width, tell him to make runs and lose the Free Role he is far more likely to stay inside the fullback and run inside the fullback. Play medium-narrow width with one winger on a free role and another with no free role and the one with the Free Role is going to tend to move wide, creating space inside while the other guy will have a tendency to operate around his position as much as possible. Conversely get your Free Role guy inside the fullback, overlap with your own Fullback and get the nearest Striker into advanced positions and you have yourself an off-set AMC playmaker.

The technical definition of the Free Role is not far wrong though not terribly helpful. Knowing what it does in theory is one thing, knowing the subtleties of its impact on the pitch under various conditions is quite another. Perhaps that is the difference between those that want the return of the arrows and those that do not. If you take a dislike to the game and spend most of the year playing FM08 you are never going to learn what is possible and what is impossible in FM09.