Interesting, challenging question!

A friend of mine (very good footballer, hates football management games) just said to me that he doesn't think it matters very much what you do with tactics. He reckons you could set all the players to do whatever they want, or to do practically nothing, and whoever has the best team percentage-wise overall will win the vast majority of the time. He says that's why he's never got into FM, because he thinks all the tactical mucking about does very little at all.

Does anyone have a really nice, cast-iron example to use that could completely disprove his theory?

Is he a professional? How about if you play 1-1-8 with the best team percentage-wise?

Is he a professional?

Nah. Semi-pro, but 35 now. Did both his knee cartileges very early on, so didn't get far...

I made some tweaks to the attack of my liverpool side and it failed dramatically as between my wonderkid striker (rated as a leading prem striker) and Gerrard they could create nothing against Wigan.

EDIT: Oh and on fm 09 i once had odds of 2000-1 to win a league i was in, i was favourites for only one game all season and i was expected to finish last by a mile but i managed to finish 5th out of 12 teams due to a good tactic.

Is he a professional? How about if you play 1-1-8 with the best team percentage-wise?

Good call, but that's too obvious! Need something a bit more subtle than that! Say two evenly matched 4-4-2's going against each other, but a CLEAR example of tactical nouse making a big difference to the result...

Guus Hiddink with Russia in euros (semi final) or with South Korea (4th in world cup) may be a good examle of tactical genius. If you be sensible with tactics he may be right IF you have good players to begin with. But with that attidute as a manager you won't get players to improve their games.

I think he's right, I don't spend much time on the tactical side. Just concentrate on building a good squad and man managing them well.

Tactics mainly matter when two teams are close in ability though.

I've just set my Newcastle team to do absolutely naff all outside the ordinary. All the outfield players in bog standard roles, sliders straight down the middle all the way. Keeper obviously set to as 'default' as I could possibly get him. Got a creditable 1-1 draw with Sheff United! ; )

Pick one of the best teams in any league, who are easily stronger than many of the other teams, select a formation and just randomly select the slider settings and see how far that gets you.

Guus Hiddink with Russia in euros or with South Korea may be a good examle of tactical genius. If you be sensible with tactics he may be right IF you have good players to begin with. But with that attidute as a manager you won't get players to improve their games.

He's not doubting tactical genius in real life! No way! He's doubting the effect of messing about with tactics in Football Manager. He reckons it makes very little difference. All about whether the team is an 83% team or a 76% team overall, you know what I mean?

Pick one of the best teams in any league, who are easily stronger than many of the other teams, select a formation and just randomly select the slider settings and see how far that gets you.

I'll give it a spin...

He's not doubting tactical genius in real life! No way! He's doubting the effect of messing about with tactics in Football Manager. He reckons it makes very little difference. All about whether the team is an 83% team or a 76% team overall, you know what I mean?

He's right. Although for a few years morale, luck and squad harmony has increased affects. It's funny though some people are complaining FM got too complicated tactical wise apparently not complicated enough for him. FM is improving this side of it. It's trying to be complicated but be presented simply.

I think he's right, I don't spend much time on the tactical side. Just concentrate on building a good squad and man managing them well.

Tactics mainly matter when two teams are close in ability though.

When they are closely matched, I just need to clearly show that a tweak here and there really does make a discernable difference to the dots running around, and to the end result. I don't think its quite as easy as it sounds!

What I DON'T want to happen is for me to say 'right then - watch this' to him, and then have it go horribly wrong, end up losing 4-0 and with a mountain of egg on my face! ; )

Has anyone ever done a 'control' season, do you reckon?

Just set a total 'default' team up and see how it gets on?

I might try it one day, when I am very, very bored...see what happens...

Everyone always brings up 'Inverting the Pyramid' but it is a good read and outlines exactly why tactics are, and always have been, critical at the top level.

What's 'Inverting the Pyramid'? Never heard of it...

Guus Hiddink with Russia in euros (semi final) or with South Korea (4th in world cup) may be a good examle of tactical genius. If you be sensible with tactics he may be right IF you have good players to begin with. But with that attidute as a manager you won't get players to improve their games.

TBH I don't think South Korea's run had much to do with tactics, just the unbelievable spirit and drive of the South Korean's

Everyone always brings up 'Inverting the Pyramid' but it is a good read and outlines exactly why tactics are, and always have been, critical at the top level.

Ah, yeah. But he'd counter that. We play for the same Sunday League team these days. There is absolutely no doubt that in real life tactical switches make a big difference. I'm a left back. If my team were playing against a good, quick team, but I kept overlapping every five minutes, I'd get caught out at the back, and let the opposition right winger have a field day. That's obvious.

However, in FM10, it does not seem that easy to show clear, definite examples of tactical nuances in play - not that I've seen so far, anyway. From what I've seem so far, as long as you aren't a total muppet - demotivating your team, buying appalling players etc. - you can pretty much be confident of a win if you have the stronger team, percentage-wise.

Yeah? No?

What's 'Inverting the Pyramid'? Never heard of it...

Sorry its a book by Jonathan Wilson about the history of tactics from the very early stages of the sport. Just realised that you meant do tactics really matter in FM though - I certainly think you could play as Man Utd on a default tactic and do reasonably well, however I think you really do need to adjust to certain developments in the game to maximise your chances of winning trophies.

For instance, say you're 1-0 up away to Arsenal playing an aggressive attacking style from the start. If you don't change to a more defensive/counter style towards the end you're almost certainly going to get picked off. Common sense in my book.

Sorry its a book by Jonathan Wilson about the history of tactics from the very early stages of the sport. Just realised that you meant do tactics really matter in FM though - I certainly think you could play as Man Utd on a default tactic and do reasonably well, however I think you really do need to adjust to certain developments in the game to maximise your chances of winning trophies.

For instance, say you're 1-0 up away to Arsenal playing an aggressive attacking style from the start. If you don't change to a more defensive/counter style towards the end you're almost certainly going to get picked off. Common sense in my book.

Absolutely common sense, but would you say that this is accurately represented in FM10?

I cannot believe that the tactics make no difference. If that was the case then why the scramble by all teams to get the best manager available. Why not have a BS manager at Liverpool (although he would probably do a better job that Rafa at the moment!) It does not happen for a reason - tactics and coaching.

When you are a Manager you surround yourself with good coaches who coach the players the way you want them to and according to your tactical philosophy.

When Allardyce was at Bolton, they were tactically very good - not the best players in the world but they played well as a team because of their tactics. Wimbledon was another prime example of tactics suiting a team and to be fair to them they did the job (not pretty but it won them games).

Sorry but I do not believe that tactics mean little irl or on the game.

Absolutely common sense, but would you say that this is accurately represented in FM10?

I think it works reasonably well in FM10 as teams appear to be more dangerous on the counter than ever before. Would be interesting if someone tried a season without ever changing their tactic to see how they did though. Would be incredibly tedious though, maybe its best to just believe that you're influencing the result by tweaking tactics even if its an illusion a lot of the time as you're suggesting.

I cannot believe that the tactics make no difference. If that was the case then why the scramble by all teams to get the best manager available. Why not have a BS manager at Liverpool (although he would probably do a better job that Rafa at the moment!) It does not happen for a reason - tactics and coaching.

When you are a Manager you surround yourself with good coaches who coach the players the way you want them to and according to your tactical philosophy.

When Allardyce was at Bolton, they were tactically very good - not the best players in the world but they played well as a team because of their tactics. Wimbledon was another prime example of tactics suiting a team and to be fair to them they did the job (not pretty but it won them games).

Sorry but I do not believe that tactics mean little irl or on the game.

Sorry - I obviously haven't explained myself very well. I have 100% no doubt that football tactics matter in REAL LIFE! Of course they do. But can they CLEARLY be shown to make a obvious difference in FM10? I want to find an absolutely irrefutable example, and it can't be as basic as putting 7 men up front! ; )

I think it works reasonably well in FM10 as teams appear to be more dangerous on the counter than ever before. Would be interesting if someone tried a season without ever changing their tactic to see how they did though. Would be incredibly tedious though, maybe its best to just believe that you're influencing the result by tweaking tactics even if its an illusion a lot of the time as you're suggesting.

Ah, that's the point!! Do people playing FM even want to THINK about the fact that all their intricate fiddling with tactics might be doing absolutely nothing?!!

You have an 88% team. The other team is 84%. You tweak, and fiddle and you WIN!!! But did you win because your tactics were good, or did you win because you're an 88% team?

Ah, that's the point!! Do people playing FM even want to THINK about the fact that all their intricate fiddling with tactics might be doing absolutely nothing?!!

You have an 88% team. The other team is 84%. You tweak, and fiddle and you WIN!!! But did you win because your tactics were good, or did you win because you're an 88% team?

You could argue that tweaking a formation is actually detrimental a lot of the time, but if you end up winning you'll always think you've done something right.

You could argue that tweaking a formation is actually detrimental a lot of the time, but if you end up winning you'll always think you've done something right.

And if you lose, you'll think you've done summat wrong. Then tweak your tactics even further one way or the other. To any avail, or not?

Maybe, like you say, it's best just not to think about it, but I'm going to be really sad and do a few 'control' experiments over a five game period. See what happens.

The joys of being ill and only having Footy Manager to fuss about! ; )

And if you lose, you'll think you've done summat wrong. Then tweak your tactics even further one way or the other. To any avail, or not?

Maybe, like you say, it's best just not to think about it, but I'm going to be really sad and do a few 'control' experiments over a five game period. See what happens.

The joys of being ill and only having Footy Manager to fuss about! ; )

A quick way to do an an experiment would be to holiday through games and use the 'use current match tactics' option. I presume that means the assman doesn't deviate from the set tactics at all, other than substitutions.

Don't worry, I've done similar experiments with the game when under the weather!

Guus Hiddink with South Korea (4th in world cup) may be a good examle of tactical genius.

It is a better example of dodgy or corrupt refereeing.

If you have one team of great players and poor tactics against a team of poor players and a great tactic(s) then the great team will win 99/100 times. You can only get out of what is at your disposal.

However if you have two equally matched teams then it is the tactics that are going to decide who wins ultimatley. Its the tactics that make that little bit of difference, whether its avoiding relegation, or winning the league, the tactics are aimed at getting the very best out of the given team.

Your mate is basically saying that all football matches are won before kick off and are won 'on paper' which as we all know is not the case.

TBH I don't think South Korea's run had much to do with tactics, just the unbelievable spirit and drive of the South Korean's

It is a better example of dodgy or corrupt refereeing.

Could be , but it's still not the 'higher overall rating wins all' kind of thing like in the op

A friend of mine (very good footballer, hates football management games) just said to me that he doesn't think it matters very much what you do with tactics. He reckons you could set all the players to do whatever they want, or to do practically nothing, and whoever has the best team percentage-wise overall will win the vast majority of the time. He says that's why he's never got into FM, because he thinks all the tactical mucking about does very little at all.

Does anyone have a really nice, cast-iron example to use that could completely disprove his theory?

Greece winning the European Championships with their throwback to man-marking defence?

Real Madrid's relative lack of success in recent years despite buying the world's 'best' players?

Liverpool's success in Europe when they switched to a 4-4-2?

Hiddink's perceived success with Chelsea (and now Ancelotti's) in comparison to Scolari's perceived failure?

I think if that was the case Man U would never, ever lose against Burnely, Arsenal would never, ever lose against Sunderland, and Liverpool wouldn't lose against Fulham. When you watch a pro match, the manager/coach is CONSTANTLY shouting at the players. If anything, real life football matches have MORE importance on tactics than FM. People forget that "formation" is nothing to do with "tactics". You can play 4-4-2 every game, but have a hundred different tactics in that.

Tactics mean that ten minutes in you may yell, "Oi, player X, fall deeper, mark their AMC more tightly, he's being used as a playmaker" (which is how I rarely lost against Chelsea in FM09 once I realised that everything went through Lampard) or "Hey, Mr Striker, you're losing all your headers, drop deeper; Mr Playmaker, feed Mr Striker to his feet so he can play Mr Nippy Striker in", and so on and so on.

You can set your stall out to defend, but if you've suddenly got a fast winger tearing your LB apart, you have to adjust those tactics again - "Mr Left Back, you're getting skinned; stand off Mr Winger and turn him onto his weaker foot; make him PASS that ball, not cross it."

True in FM as in real life. And yes, before anyone points it out, we know defending needs tweaking for the 10.2 patch.

What your friend is right about is that the best team of players usually do win. That tends to be true especially in leagues where a couple of teams are head and shoulders above the rest of the league - the Old Firm in Scotland springs to mind. But in the Prem, the gap between Man U and, say, Villa or Everton is nowhere near the gap between Celtic and SPL mid-table teams. And the gap between Man U and Wolves or Hull is definitely nowhere near the gap between Celtic and the bottom SPL teams. Similarly in Spain, France and Italy. Hull, on paper, are no-hopers, but they are still professional players, most of which cost money to transfer to that club. Hull are NOT no-hopers, just technically less skillful than the top teams in the league. It doesn't mean they'll never beat Arsenal at the Emirates, though.

Also, couldn't the difference be down somewhat to the best teams having, usually, the best managers? Look at Chelsea's succession of failed managers, how they are now riding high with what is essentially the same team as last year. Why? Tactics & motivation. How did Fergie win the double with "kids"? They turned out world class but in FM terms most were probably in the CA130 to 150 / PA -9 to -10 range. Tactics & motivation.

In terms of chances, yes, I agree with your friend, the team with the best players USUALLY wins. But it's not just down to 22 players on a field. If the best players are disorganised with no leadership and are up against a well-organised, gifted but slightly inferior team, the best players are less likely to win. Far less likely.

The trouble with FM is that it's a computer game. It can't simulate real life properly, and it never will, any more than COD4 can simulate real warfare. When you buy a computer game you have to accept that there will be shortcomings. Out-and-out bugs, report them, you'll never erradicate these completely. But play the game that's in front of you, and you'll have more fun than if you design the game in your head first.

Hiddink's perceived success with Chelsea (and now Ancelotti's) in comparison to Scolari's perceived failure?

Slovenia being a perfect example of exellant squad managment and team spirit being more important than any tacical geniusness?

Barca's 'just play football' against Mourinho's 'everything under control' too?

"Players lose you games, not tactics. There's so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win at dominoes" - The great, late Sir Brian Clough.

If the great man managed on that philosophy then it can't be far wrong.

I personally feel that FM, especially this year, has become too reliant on tactics and not enough on player ability which is the way it should be, as it is in real life...in my humble opinion of course.

tjb2376, you friend is obviously wrong. He has his opinion on the game as everyone of us. Some will like it, some won't. But the reality is that with right tactics in real life and on FM, you can achieve what you want.

+1 for Raware,i think what too.

Its quite dissapointing really,becouse it doesn't look like in reality,i hate Sci-Fi games,so i don't like it too. God Bless what would be fixed in 10.2 patch.

Well, in game I'm playing as Man C.

I had a game against Chelsea at the Bridge (I was the underdog at the bookies).

I was 1-0 up due with 10 mins to go. Needless to say Chelsea threw the kitchen sink at me and grabbed an equaliser. In sheer frustration, I set my approach to overload, and you guessed it...lost 2-1.

It was farily easy to see that my chage in approach gave them way to much space.

tjb2376, you friend is obviously wrong. He has his opinion on the game as everyone of us. Some will like it, some won't. But the reality is that with right tactics in real life and on FM, you can achieve what you want.

Without wanting to sound too chastising, why has no one broken the 'top 4' in the EPL in the past few years? Man City are many people's choice to break it but for what...their tactics or their money to buy the best players?

Take Rafa for example, widely thought by many as a good tactician but why hasn't he won the Premiership? Why are they on such a poor run at the minute? Simple, they don't have the best players and when Torres and Stevie G are missing...it shows.

Don't get me wrong, tactics are an important part of football, but they're only a part. They are seen as key now days in a world which is complicating tactics by the day. To quote another great man..."Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple." - Bill Shankly.

You can own a Pagani Zonda, but if you are useless at driving it, you'll lose a race against an Austin Metro...

It's true in some cases you can just pick your Best Eleven, throwing them on the pitch with a random 4-4-2 and leaving it up to them and win easily.

But saying tactics has no influence on the game and on its outcome is bollocks.

Otherwise Brazil would have won like 10 World Cups, and we'd have NEVER EVER witnessed historical wins like Denmark at Euro92 or Greece at Euro04.

Let's put it this way: tactics can have limited influence if your players are top class AND driven. But tactics are a vital part for succeeding when the players are average-at-best.

Inter Milan have been dominating domestically, even without a clear gameplan, thanks to a clearly superior squad. However they have been disappointing in European competitions (even against weak opponents) due to their lack of a gameplan and of tactical discipline.

I think common sense needs to prevail here.

If a team has much better players than another then they should win no matter what the tactics (however tactics will make the difference on how much they win by).

When the teams are of equal balance, then tactics will make a difference.

Kind of sounds similar to real life if you ask me. I think SI have it right and any player that expects their tactical decisions to make all the difference in every game will be dissapointed - coz thats just not how it happens.

To quote another great man..."Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple." - Bill Shankly.

if it was that simple, we would have had different champions each year.

I think common sense needs to prevail here.

If a team has much better players than another then they should win no matter what the tactics (however tactics will make the difference on how much they win by).

When the teams are of equal balance, then tactics will make a difference.

Kind of sounds similar to real life if you ask me. I think SI have it right and any player that expects their tactical decisions to make all the difference in every game will be dissapointed - coz thats just not how it happens.

Fair enough. This is what balance is all about. Good players + Good tactics = Better player + Average tactics.

It is silly to argue "Players vs Coaches" in pro game. They are both important in their own way. Best players can win matches without a good coach but the team will not reach to its potential without a good coach, on the other hand a good coach can only do limited wonders without a good squad.

I can understand when this argument comes from a 35 years old semi-pro who obviously can not play any better at this stage regardless to coach influence. He already reached to a level that he knows more than enough about the level of football he is playing at but his comment can not be generalised.

If we are talking about a short span of time or lets say a single match; an organized 442 team with top players without a coach will beat a decent team with a good coach. Coaches can not do miracles just by drawing tactics on the board and screaming from the sideline, it takes time to see the affects of coach.

Some recent examples of such success stories are;

Greece team in 2004; Otto Rehagels ugly but efficient tactics made them beat the best of Europe at the time.

Russia team in 2008, Hiddink made the Russia play smarter than ever

Mourinhos breakthorugh with Porto; a good but not great Porto team was winnig everything consistenly with Mourinho magic.

Real Madrid; without a doubt; Madrid buys best of best players but they are having off seasons as well, and most blame goes to coaches not being able to lead the team properly.

England team 2008; an unexperienced coach upset a strong team like England and failed to qualify for Euro2008. It is hard to believe Capello would miss 2008 if he was already at charge during 2006 to 2008.

Greece winning the European Championships with their throwback to man-marking defence?

Real Madrid's relative lack of success in recent years despite buying the world's 'best' players?

Liverpool's success in Europe when they switched to a 4-4-2?

Hiddink's perceived success with Chelsea (and now Ancelotti's) in comparison to Scolari's perceived failure?

Many thanks, but again, I'm not talking about real life.

I'm talking about cast iron example in FM10.

There is NO DOUBT that tactics matter in real life. It is in FM10 I am talking about.

I think if that was the case Man U would never, ever lose against Burnely, Arsenal would never, ever lose against Sunderland, and Liverpool wouldn't lose against Fulham. When you watch a pro match, the manager/coach is CONSTANTLY shouting at the players. If anything, real life football matches have MORE importance on tactics than FM. People forget that "formation" is nothing to do with "tactics". You can play 4-4-2 every game, but have a hundred different tactics in that.

Tactics mean that ten minutes in you may yell, "Oi, player X, fall deeper, mark their AMC more tightly, he's being used as a playmaker" (which is how I rarely lost against Chelsea in FM09 once I realised that everything went through Lampard) or "Hey, Mr Striker, you're losing all your headers, drop deeper; Mr Playmaker, feed Mr Striker to his feet so he can play Mr Nippy Striker in", and so on and so on.

You can set your stall out to defend, but if you've suddenly got a fast winger tearing your LB apart, you have to adjust those tactics again - "Mr Left Back, you're getting skinned; stand off Mr Winger and turn him onto his weaker foot; make him PASS that ball, not cross it."

True in FM as in real life. And yes, before anyone points it out, we know defending needs tweaking for the 10.2 patch.

What your friend is right about is that the best team of players usually do win. That tends to be true especially in leagues where a couple of teams are head and shoulders above the rest of the league - the Old Firm in Scotland springs to mind. But in the Prem, the gap between Man U and, say, Villa or Everton is nowhere near the gap between Celtic and SPL mid-table teams. And the gap between Man U and Wolves or Hull is definitely nowhere near the gap between Celtic and the bottom SPL teams. Similarly in Spain, France and Italy. Hull, on paper, are no-hopers, but they are still professional players, most of which cost money to transfer to that club. Hull are NOT no-hopers, just technically less skillful than the top teams in the league. It doesn't mean they'll never beat Arsenal at the Emirates, though.

Also, couldn't the difference be down somewhat to the best teams having, usually, the best managers? Look at Chelsea's succession of failed managers, how they are now riding high with what is essentially the same team as last year. Why? Tactics & motivation. How did Fergie win the double with "kids"? They turned out world class but in FM terms most were probably in the CA130 to 150 / PA -9 to -10 range. Tactics & motivation.

In terms of chances, yes, I agree with your friend, the team with the best players USUALLY wins. But it's not just down to 22 players on a field. If the best players are disorganised with no leadership and are up against a well-organised, gifted but slightly inferior team, the best players are less likely to win. Far less likely.

The trouble with FM is that it's a computer game. It can't simulate real life properly, and it never will, any more than COD4 can simulate real warfare. When you buy a computer game you have to accept that there will be shortcomings. Out-and-out bugs, report them, you'll never erradicate these completely. But play the game that's in front of you, and you'll have more fun than if you design the game in your head first.

Excellent answer! Many thanks for the effort you put into this.

Got some work to do, but will respond...

Many thanks, but again, I'm not talking about real life.

I'm talking about cast iron example in FM10.

There is NO DOUBT that tactics matter in real life. It is in FM10 I am talking about.

You have to get your mate around and experiment then. Watch a full game and ask him at half time where you could change the tactics, eg, ask full backs to stop getting forward as much, need more steel in MC (so use sub), ask winger to take on full back more, etc. Basically see how he views the progress of the game. To be honest though, you'd need to do this for three or four games to see if he can spot the little things to change. It's not always going to be a change in personnel, it might be something you can only spot when observing the flow of the game. For instance, a MC you have might be playing an outstanding game and you're 1-0 up, but he's 34 and getting tired in the 65th minute, their young playmaker is coming into the game and skipping past the old guy. You need to freshen things up. A younger, fitter, but less talented guy might just be the answer to snuff out the potential problem.

It is silly to argue "Players vs Coaches" in pro game. They are both important in their own way. Best players can win matches without a good coach but the team will not reach to its potential without a good coach, on the other hand a good coach can only do limited wonders without a good squad.

I can understand when this argument comes from a 35 years old semi-pro who obviously can not play any better at this stage regardless to coach influence. He already reached to a level that he knows more than enough about the level of football he is playing at but his comment can not be generalised.

If we are talking about a short span of time or lets say a single match; an organized 442 team with top players without a coach will beat a decent team with a good coach. Coaches can not do miracles just by drawing tactics on the board and screaming from the sideline, it takes time to see the affects of coach.

Some recent examples of such success stories are;

Greece team in 2004; Otto Rehagels ugly but efficient tactics made them beat the best of Europe at the time.

Russia team in 2008, Hiddink made the Russia play smarter than ever

Mourinhos breakthorugh with Porto; a good but not great Porto team was winnig everything consistenly with Mourinho magic.

Real Madrid; without a doubt; Madrid buys best of best players but they are having off seasons as well, and most blame goes to coaches not being able to lead the team properly.

England team 2008; an unexperienced coach upset a strong team like England and failed to qualify for Euro2008. It is hard to believe Capello would miss 2008 if he was already at charge during 2006 to 2008.

Again mate, these are REAL LIFE examples. Myself and my friend have no doubt about the effect of tactical decisions in REAL LIFE. It's the value of tactical tinkering in FM10 I'm concerned with, because he's not convinced that it does all that much at all, and that it'll almost always end with the 88% team beating the 84% team because they've got better players.

I'd love to be able to show him a concrete example that would make him say 'fair enough, it was definitely the tactics that won that' when two similarly matched teams are playing each other on FM10.

Anyone got one?!

You can own a Pagani Zonda, but if you are useless at driving it, you'll lose a race against an Austin Metro...QUOTE]

Nice!

tjb2376, you friend is obviously wrong. He has his opinion on the game as everyone of us. Some will like it, some won't. But the reality is that with right tactics in real life and on FM, you can achieve what you want.

Yep - that's what I think mate, but I want to PROVE it to him!

Next time he comes round, I want to play a match in front of him between two equally matched FM10 teams and absolutely PROVE that the tactical tinkering is making a properly discernable difference to the result of the game, rather than it being just that one team has slightly better players on the pitch, or has a slightly better overall team rating/reputation or whatever...

I started a go in Spain and wanted to see what budget Valencia got in the next summer, so i took charge of them and holidayed for a year. They were in the relegation zone for most of the season! Now, maybe my assistant was upsetting the two David's every week, i don't know. But i can guarantee if i had sat down and created a tactic i would've guided them to a much better position. It isn't just down to buying the best players and managing your players' morale and happiness, although these things are very important (like real life).

There are plenty of examples of great teams underachieving in the game. If Manchester United are mid-table, what is this down to?

In FM09 i was managing Italy in the Confederations Cup and came up against Brazil in the semis. I started with something like this team:

They were playing a 4-1-3-1-1 (players i can't remember):

They were overrunning us in midfield, even though i had stuck Gattuso in to help out defensively, and their AMC (Kaka) was proving difficult to contain while their full-backs were pinning us back. They got a goal early on and we were struggling to get out of our own half. I had to change something to get a hold on the game, so i moved Gattuso inside to a DM position to help out in midfield and pulled Gilardino out to the flank.

The extra man really helped to even things up with their 5-man midfield. Removing my MR released Zambrotta to maraud down the right where there was acres and acres of space. Their DR also had this luxury, but Gilardino was there to exploit any advances he made.

We ended up winning 2-1 with both goals coming down the right. The first, as far as i can remember, was Zambrotta crossing to Gilardinho and he scored at the near post; the second was Gilardino getting to the byline and cutting it back for De Rossi to score a long range goal just outside the edge of the box.

I like to think i influenced the outcome of the game with those tactical changes.