Bring back 01/02 tactics

Do you remember how cool it was?

For those who don't, we had complete control on player positions with and without the ball and 12 areas of the pitch. I think that this is by far the main reason why it still so popular today.

Imagine how only today it would live up to full potential with 3d view. To see all those changes you make in 3d would be amazing. How ur player run exactly where and how you tell them, or not exactly depending of c. freedom... You can forget half the instructions we have and don't know exactly what they do. I mean how wide and how forward, stupid mentality slider, when exactly to cut inside and not just with the ball...

I had high hopes for that system and the 2d ME, but unfortunately they dropped it when 2d was introduced... man I was disappointed!

I cant believe most of you voted no. Could you write down the reason for not wanting this?

It's a very unrealistic way of instructing the team and would be a major setback compared to what we have at the moment. That's my reason for voting no.

It's a very unrealistic way of instructing the team and would be a major setback compared to what we have at the moment. That's my reason for voting no.

I don't think its unrealistic. I believe its the way it is done IRL. It doesn't mean that players would become robots. It is just as strait forward instruction as it can get, doesn't mean the player will obey it completely. Cant see the reason why it'll be a setback.

It doesn't matter in which way you instruct your players... The actual issue is: "will all that actually HAPPEN in the game?".

So, we can have the old system, the sliders, the tactical wizard or a brand new tactical editor, but as long as the ME fails to replicate our instructions the way we want/expect, there's little point in discussing which system was better.

Let's face it, this year Tactical Wizard is awesome on paper, but the ME doesn't make it justice.

With and Without the ball is actually a VERY valid tactical system used by a lot of Premiership managers.

Roy Hodgson was talking about it before the Arsenal/Chelsea game last week.

This is exactly how he sets his team up.

I cant believe most of you voted no. Could you write down the reason for not wanting this?

Can't be just coincidence.

IMO, this FM2010 model is actually quite realistic and those roles really do give you ALOT of control on what your players do.

Explore the various different roles and their interaction with each other, you'll come to enjoy it.

For example, when you had the winger with a diagonal into the box, that's Inside Forward

The midfield with the arrow backwards -> ball winning midfielder

The midfield with the arrow forward -> advanced playmaker

Lists go on, experiment with the roles, it'll grow on you.

There are a lot of reasons why this system is unrealistic and has flaws.

It's still a bit too rigid for me and can conflict with preferred player moves.

For example, Steven Gerrard isn't told to regularly hit long shots. It's just his game. It'll be this way if he moves to Real Madrid, regardless of their tactical system.

Can't be just coincidence.

IMO, this FM2010 model is actually quite realistic and those roles really do give you ALOT of control on what your players do.

Explore the various different roles and their interaction with each other, you'll come to enjoy it.

For example, when you had the winger with a diagonal into the box, that's Inside Forward

The midfield with the arrow backwards -> ball winning midfielder

The midfield with the arrow forward -> advanced playmaker

Lists go on, experiment with the roles, it'll grow on you.

You didn't notice how inside forward just runs inside with the ball and never tries to get in without it? Maybe I am just imagining this.

The arrows doesn't mean a playmaker role, it just says how he runs or not. My point is to have a control on how forward exactly does he goes running. Don't you think that it is important to tell him not to go in the box but still to run forward. There is also the horizintal run that I miss a lot.

after watching bolton all season.

i have to have sympathy with Megson. He screams all match 'get outt' 'push uppp', just to see us sit 11 men on the goal line.

players are in control, the manager does as much as he can, but decisions on the pitch are largely up to the players.

kinda didnt say my point lol, fm 2010 gives u a base to set your tactics on, but if you aint an appropriate manager for the team, they will rely on themselves more than you. i think this is amazing

I voted yes, simpley because while I think you can get tactic's to work on this system the AI can counter each and every one of them in the space of 2 or 3 games. Player attributes seem to be irrevlovent as once your tactic's have been counterd even the most average of team's can beat you more often than not. This is just completely unrealistic as even if Hull had access to Man Utd's tactical set-up before a game they would still stuggle to beat them due to the gap in quality.

I would like it back. Not sure why its not considered realistic, as players will carry out pattern of play routines in training, being told where to stand depending on where the ball is on the pitch.

With and Without the ball is actually a VERY valid tactical system used by a lot of Premiership managers.

Roy Hodgson was talking about it before the Arsenal/Chelsea game last week.

This is exactly how he sets his team up.

Naturally, managers will give their players direction as to what positions they might take up on and off the ball. I'm not going to dispute that, and I actually argued the same thing last year in a couple of threads regarding tactical instructions. However, to tell a certain player the exact position he should be in when a ball is in a certain zone of the pitch is totally unrealistic in my opinion. It's just not how football works.

My view is that the current system, using the tactics creator, is far superior to this old system. Hopefully, we will see more development and improvement in the future so that more direction is possible. But that's exactly what we need: direction and not control.

All in my opinion, of course.

Regards,

C.

If i remember correctly the arrows were for where your players ran when your team had the ball! but i maybe wrong.

but i agree i would like to see the 'without ball' feature back! as alot of pro teams have that set out in real life!!

Naturally, managers will give their players direction as to what positions they might take up on and off the ball. I'm not going to dispute that, and I actually argued the same thing last year in a couple of threads regarding tactical instructions. However, to tell a certain player the exact position he should be in when a ball is in a certain zone of the pitch is totally unrealistic in my opinion. It's just not how football works.

My view is that the current system, using the tactics creator, is far superior to this old system. Hopefully, we will see more development and improvement in the future so that more direction is possible. But that's exactly what we need: direction and not control.

All in my opinion, of course.

Regards,

C.

But it does happen. From personal experience, Im told if the ball is in a certain area, I should be in a certain area. Perhaps not to the centimeter, as would happen in FM, but that is a limitation of the software, not something that isnt realistic.

But it does happen. From personal experience, Im told if the ball is in a certain area, I should be in a certain area. Perhaps not to the centimeter, as would happen in FM, but that is a limitation of the software, not something that isnt realistic.

Where do you play or have played? Your insights could be an asset in this board.

Of course With and Without ball happens. SI obviously implemented this after speaking to experts! It's not something they just made up.

Managers actively use their formations in this way - I'm not sure if all do but I've heard a few talk about play in this way.

Where do you play or have played? Your insights could be an asset in this board.

Just local level football - was well organised and we tried to play decent football though.

But it does happen. From personal experience, Im told if the ball is in a certain area, I should be in a certain area. Perhaps not to the centimeter, as would happen in FM, but that is a limitation of the software, not something that isnt realistic.

Did you miss the first sentence in my post.

Just local level football - was well organised and we tried to play decent football though.

Local level meaning Sunday League or non-League?

Did you miss the first sentence in my post.

No But you kind of contradicted yourself with your next sentence so I wasnt sure what to make of it.

And non-League.

No But you kind of contradicted yourself with your next sentence so I wasnt sure what to make of it.

I don't see any contradiction whatsoever.

I've said that, on the one hand, managers will give their players direction as to what positions they might take up on and off the ball. This will be more about different areas to cover when off the ball and spaces that should be attacked when the team is on the ball.

However, to tell a certain player the exact position he should be in when a ball is in a certain zone of the pitch is not realistic in my view. Positioning and off the ball movement in football should be dynamic, depending upon the circumstances of play. As such, the movement of a player is characterised by continuous change throughout the game and intelligent reaction to the play.

There is a difference between suggesting areas to cover or spaces to attack (giving direction), and indicating an exact position you expect a player to take up on or off the ball (attempting to control). Do you see what I am saying?

I've used this quotation by Ancelotti in a couple of threads recently but I feel it is relevant here as well. He says, '... a coach has to say what kind of movements he wants and should give clear indications. These are "guides" for the talent, but it will be up to the talent to enrich the situation. But a "guide" is always necessary'.

For me the old system was more than a guide, it was a method of controlling movements.

I wouldn't, however, disagree if you said that the current system could be improved to give a better 'guide' as to the kind of movements a manager wants. However, the current system is still far superior to the old one in my eyes. I wouldn't want to see a return to wibble/wobble as it used to be known!

Hope that explains my position a little better.

And non-League.

What level out of interest?

Regards,

C.

I dislike sliders and don't particularly like the tactics wizard, but going back to such a simplistic tactics module would be a massive step backwards.

Do you remember how cool it was?

For those who don't, we had complete control on player positions with and without the ball and 12 areas of the pitch. I think that this is by far the main reason why it still so popular today.

Imagine how only today it would live up to full potential with 3d view. To see all those changes you make in 3d would be amazing. How ur player run exactly where and how you tell them, or not exactly depending of c. freedom... You can forget half the instructions we have and don't know exactly what they do. I mean how wide and how forward, stupid mentality slider, when exactly to cut inside and not just with the ball...

I love that feature would love to have something like that with free kicks, corners and throw ins.

I don't see any contradiction whatsoever.

I've said that, on the one hand, managers will give their players direction as to what positions they might take up on and off the ball. This will be more about different areas to cover when off the ball and spaces that should be attacked when the team is on the ball.

However, to tell a certain player the exact position he should be in when a ball is in a certain zone of the pitch is not realistic in my view. Positioning and off the ball movement in football should be dynamic, depending upon the circumstances of play. As such, the movement of a player is characterised by continuous change throughout the game and intelligent reaction to the play.

There is a difference between suggesting areas to cover or spaces to attack (giving direction), and indicating an exact position you expect a player to take up on or off the ball (attempting to control). Do you see what I am saying?

I've used this quotation by Ancelotti in a couple of threads recently but I feel it is relevant here as well. He says, '... a coach has to say what kind of movements he wants and should give clear indications. These are "guides" for the talent, but it will be up to the talent to enrich the situation. But a "guide" is always necessary'.

For me the old system was more than a guide, it was a method of controlling movements.

I wouldn't, however, disagree if you said that the current system could be improved to give a better 'guide' as to the kind of movements a manager wants. However, the current system is still far superior to the old one in my eyes. I wouldn't want to see a return to wibble/wobble as it used to be known!

Hope that explains my position a little better.

It does clear it up a little. However, referring back to my previous post, coaches do tell players to stand in a certain area, depending on where the ball is on the pitch. As i said, this may not be to the centimeter, as would have been portrayed on the wibble/wobble board as you call it, but it was still an instruction of where to stand. As you have correctly stated, obviously certain events would contribute to whether or not these instructions are followed to the dot or they are adapted slightly to suit whatever small change has occurred.

In my own time as a lowly football player, I have never heard a "suggestion" from a manager. It was more "if the ball is here, you do this". And if i didnt comply, I was told so, and expected to adapt what I did to suit the manager. I do, however, agree with your sentiment that football is dynamic - but this is why there were 12 squares on the wibble/wobble board, and why it catered for with/without the ball. That was 24 different scenarios, and would suffice to allow your team to dynamically adapt its shape depending on what was going on around it.

With regards to your Ancellotti quite, the key word through out is "talent". Naturally, everyone will interpret this in a different form. However I am going to propose a certain angle of thinking.Thinking solely of the english football, how many teams would you say have enough talent for there level to play a free flowing style of football, where they essentially only partially comply with the wishes of a manager? Perhaps the top four in the premiership, maybe one or two more teams. Below that however, and even in the premiership, teams and formations become more and more rigid, and you lose this idea of a manager merely acting as a guide and offering suggestions to players. In these scenarios managers become dictator like and will tell with a greater degree of accuracy exactly where they want them to stand.

I never used that system in 01/02 because it just seemed to long and drawn out (no i didn't understand it) yet I still managed to have succesful campaigns.

Much prefer the current system it makes much more sense to a tactical novice like me. I do not play IRL and haven't done since I was 12. So unless I can employ Rugby Tactics it just wouldn't work for me.

I cant believe most of you voted no. Could you write down the reason for not wanting this?

Because, somewhat selfishly, I'm having great success with the current [new] system and couldn't imagine a Football Manager world without it.

An interesting post Elmo and something we'll probably have to agree to disagree on.

Certainly at the level I watch football at (which is Step 2 of non-League as you'll probably guess from my location), the shape and movement isn't so rigid as to see the same players taking up the same positions all of the time. It's not free flowing stuff at Clarence Park admittedly but the shape and movement can be quite fluid and is determined for each player by things like opposition players' positioning, their team mates and the ball. It's far more dynamic than a 'you stand here when the ball is here' approach in my opinion.

I won't make the same points again regarding my interpretation of this in real life as I think I've said everything I want to say above. Rather, I'll just add that I wouldn't want to see a move back to this old tactics system because a) it was boring to use, b) this was used in the days prior to even 2D coming into the game and is far too simplistic for what we currently have, and c) I think the football produced using such a tactic would be about as dull as it can get. All in my opinion of course.

I do agree with some of the comments suggesting that current system could be improved to give better direction as to the kind of movements a manager wants though. I think, as a workable system (and in my opinion, a realistic one too) this should be in the form of direction and a guide for the player though, to encourage a certain movement, and I also believe that movement and shape would need to dynamically adjust to the play first and foremost.

Regards,

C.

Nothings saying that the current system is bad/wrong either. I think is does the job nicely, and as such I wouldnt want to see it ever leave. That said, I feel the reintroduction of the wibble/wobble tactics would enhance the options that we currently have. I do take on board your points however and perhaps, considering this is a game, that it would offer a little too much control to the user.

Perhaps a welcome middle ground would be to introduce it for set pieces - I feel there would perhaps be more agreement that managers at all levels would give very specific instructions for players to carry out at set pieces?

There is too much emphasis on tactics, i'll bet only a handfull of managers bother with tactics in depth. The Midfield and Striking options are awfull, you cant tell a player what he is, if he's a ball winning midfielder the thats what he is and thats what he will do.

Perhaps a welcome middle ground would be to introduce it for set pieces - I feel there would perhaps be more agreement that managers at all levels would give very specific instructions for players to carry out at set pieces?

It's more or less there for set pieces though, isn't it? I mean, you get to tell each player what to do and where to go (e.g. stand on the far post, attack the near post etc.) A wibble/wobble screen wouldn't really add much there.

C.

An interesting post Elmo and something we'll probably have to agree to disagree on.

Certainly at the level I watch football at (which is Step 2 of non-League as you'll probably guess from my location), the shape and movement isn't so rigid as to see the same players taking up the same positions all of the time. It's not free flowing stuff at Clarence Park admittedly but the shape and movement can be quite fluid and is determined for each player by things like opposition players' positioning, their team mates and the ball. It's far more dynamic than a 'you stand here when the ball is here' approach in my opinion.

I won't make the same points again regarding my interpretation of this in real life as I think I've said everything I want to say above. Rather, I'll just add that I wouldn't want to see a move back to this old tactics system because a) it was boring to use, b) this was used in the days prior to even 2D coming into the game and is far too simplistic for what we currently have, and c) I think the football produced using such a tactic would be about as dull as it can get. All in my opinion of course.

I do agree with some of the comments suggesting that current system could be improved to give better direction as to the kind of movements a manager wants though. I think, as a workable system (and in my opinion, a realistic one too) this should be in the form of direction and a guide for the player though, to encourage a certain movement, and I also believe that movement and shape would need to dynamically adjust to the play first and foremost.

Regards,

C.

When i played for Rugby Town (Zamaretto Midlands Premier), the way it was set-up was very much much dependant on opponents. Instructions with and without ball varied. For instance, if we were playing a strong team at home or playing away, we set-up first and foremost to be hard to break down meaning that the without ball instructions were far more importrant than the with ball ones, for instance our RB was told to hold a line if defending and not go to the ball. Then when we moved into an attacking phase his role changed so he could leave the line of defence and go support the attack. For games where we were the stronger team (not many), the set-up was less regimented. The RB had license to go forward, midfield bomb on etc.

There is too much emphasis on tactics, i'll bet only a handfull of managers bother with tactics in depth. The Midfield and Striking options are awfull, you cant tell a player what he is, if he's a ball winning midfielder the thats what he is and thats what he will do.

I couldn't agree with that at all Summerisle. There would seem to be quite a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise.

C.

Oh and to add, to go back to 01/02 tactics would be a step back from now as everything else in the game has moved on.

When i played for Rugby Town (Zamaretto Midlands Premier), the way it was set-up was very much much dependant on opponents. Instructions with and without ball varied. For instance, if we were playing a strong team at home or playing away, we set-up first and foremost to be hard to break down meaning that the without ball instructions were far more importrant than the with ball ones, for instance our RB was told to hold a line if defending and not go to the ball. Then when we moved into an attacking phase his role changed so he could leave the line of defence and go support the attack. For games where we were the stronger team (not many), the set-up was less regimented. The RB had license to go forward, midfield bomb on etc.

Depends on the manager and the opposition I guess.

I cant believe most of you voted no. Could you write down the reason for not wanting this?

Short answer - Because I hated it.

Longer answer:

Because it became increasingly frustrating and boring dragging 10 outfield players around the pitch for each of the 12 zones. And then repeating it depending on whether I had possession or not.

Because I much prefer the new system to any that has gone before.

Because it was too easy to exploit the ME using it (this was the version that had Diablo etc iirc). See the videos of CM's set piece creator in action for a more recent comparison.

Because while many real life manager may confess to having similar ideas, it didn't 'feel' realistic, more like robotic.

Because it would feel like a huge step backwards.

i'll bet only a handfull of managers bother with tactics in depth

R u talking real life or the game? Never mind, I think you are very wrong in both cases.

There is too much emphasis on tactics.

For me, tactics is the main interest and thrill in the game.

you cant tell a player what he is, if he's a ball winning midfielder the thats what he is and thats what he will do.

Actually you can. He may not do that good a job as he's natural one but still if need be u can redirect a player somehow, somewhere, somewhat. There are also many quite versatile players who purpose in clubs are to be this and that when needed.

Why are so many of u taking this so literally? Try to look at just a little bigger picture. I certainly don't wish to have that particular tactic system of 01/02. I just wish for a step in that direction and to have those good features that I think it had. I'm talking about the old game cause I think its a good way to illustrate this. It is not the matter of losing or getting features. It's about the way they are controlled. For instance, you wouldn't have width of mentality sliders. You would set the positions on the pitch screen... And I certainly don't think that players should and can follow those places by meter on the match.

I hope you all realise the with/without options still exist within FM.

What a lot of people seem to struggle to grasp is that what you see on the tactics screen is the "Without Ball" setup. The instructions you then give are the "With Ball" settings.

I hope you all realise the with/without options still exist within FM.

What a lot of people seem to struggle to grasp is that what you see on the tactics screen is the "Without Ball" setup. The instructions you then give are the "With Ball" settings.

Now that's not really true is it?

Now that's not really true is it?

Do I need to expand?

The graphical setup of your team on the tactics screen is always the initial "without ball" positions.

When your team loses the ball the players will attempt to get back to these positions whilst having one eye on any defensive instructions you have given them - marking, closing down etc.

When in possession the players follow the attacking instructions (Forward runs etc) which have been issued and move into the "with ball" positions.

The problem with any formation is that its only a loose guideline as players are always moving with instructions and attributes also playing a part as to which blade of grass they happen to be standing on at any given moment within a match.

Do I need to expand?

The graphical setup of your team on the tactics screen is always the initial "without ball" positions.

When your team loses the ball the players will attempt to get back to these positions whilst having one eye on any defensive instructions you have given them - marking, closing down etc.

When in possession the players follow the attacking instructions (Forward runs etc) which have been issued and move into the "with ball" positions.

The problem with any formation is that its only a loose guideline as players are always moving with instructions and attributes also playing a part as to which blade of grass they happen to be standing on at any given moment within a match.

That is true, I suppose but it is not what u said the first time. So the formation is not defensive or offensive setup, its both, right? What I am trying to say here is that it would be great to have a little, or much more variety and control over what your players should do. Not what they actually will do but what you want them to do or where to be in a given time according to where the ball is.

I would say the closing down setting very much dictates how your team acts without the ball. Along with man marking/specifik marking.