Need more proof that the ME defending is shambolic?

I'm playing in my first season as Fulham and was fortunate enough to make it to the semifinals for the League Cup. I was matched up with Arsenal and lost the first match 2-0 in a game where I was a bit overmatched.

And then the second leg went like this...

I was on "Overload" team strategy for nearly the whole match (after going down 1-0 in the second leg I really didnt' have a choice) but look closely at the game.

I scored 6 goals AFTER I had Aaron Hughes sent off. There were a total of 5 goals scored between the two teams in extra time.

I should feel proud but mainly I just feel ripped off - once Hughes was sent off I shouldn't have even had a chance in this match (down by 2 goals aggregate).

sort it out si!

must be your tactics.

erm just like to say, the fact that you used the overload option is whats caused this, if you read the discription on you tactics screen you will understand what im on about. by going all out (overload) you are throwing caution to the wind and basically not bothered about defending at all. so therefore you are going to conceed a few goals, at the same time you now have basically ALL your team (now 9 outfield players, as oppossed to 4 or 5 depending on your usual tactics) up the other end of the pitch trying to score, so you are more than likely going to score a few goals.

also dont forget that the arsenal team in the first year isnt the greatest in the game, not that there crap, far from it, there just not as good as they use to be. so as far as i can see, this is perfectly possible.

and anyway, i wouldn't be complaining if i was you, you just beat at good team in an absolute thriller of a match.

erm just like to say, the fact that you used the overload option is whats caused this, if you read the discription on you tactics screen you will understand what im on about. by going all out (overload) you are throwing caution to the wind and basically not bothered about defending at all. so therefore you are going to conceed a few goals, at the same time you now have basically ALL your team (now 9 outfield players, as oppossed to 4 or 5 depending on your usual tactics) up the other end of the pitch trying to score, so you are more than likely going to score a few goals.

also dont forget that the arsenal team in the first year isnt the greatest in the game, not that there crap, far from it, there just not as good as they use to be. so as far as i can see, this is perfectly possible.

and anyway, i wouldn't be complaining if i was you, you just beat at good team in an absolute thriller of a match.

frankly Arsenal should be able to counter the crap out of me after I was a man down on "overload". For quite a while in overtime I was playing 1 at the back. I shouldn't be able to score 6 goals on a top-4 premiership team when I am a man down regardless of what tactics I am playing!

you would like to think so, but hold on a mo, frankly man utd sould be able to distroy villa when playing at old trafford (check real life stats for last 20 years or so), but hold on a mo, didn't villa just beat them 1-0 no less than 36 hrs ago irl!!!! weird things happen in football, and the fact that you only had 1 man at the back and playing overload tactics would mean that a lot of the time if they did manage to get the ball from 8 of your players in there third of the pitch (very crowded), then there would be a high chance of there forwards being offside.

but wait a min, they scored 4 goals against you after you went to overload, so they did counter you (successfully) a few times

you would like to think so, but hold on a mo, frankly man utd sould be able to distroy villa when playing at old trafford (check real life stats for last 20 years or so), but hold on a mo, didn't villa just beat them 1-0 no less than 36 hrs ago irl!!!! weird things happen in football, and the fact that you only had 1 man at the back and playing overload tactics would mean that a lot of the time if they did manage to get the ball from 8 of your players in there third of the pitch (very crowded), then there would be a high chance of there forwards being offside.

but wait a min, they scored 4 goals against you after you went to overload, so they did counter you (successfully) a few times

Aston Villa beating Manchester United 1-0 is hardly the same thing. Now if Aston Villa were a man down and beat united 5-3 perhaps you would have a point. But realistically I can't see that happening.

Erm, i don't think Aston Villa, a top 6 or 7 team in the Premier League, going and narrowly beating Man United is comparable to Fulham beating Arsenal 8-5. With all due respect. Unless all of Fulham's goals were from set-pieces, this is proof that defending is unrealistic...

Well, i actually don't know. I haven't had major problems defensively, not noticeably so - except a few too many long shots tend to fly in, even from the most incapable of players.

The argument about using an Overload strategy is a fair one to explain the goals Arsenal scored, but then Arsenal scoring 5 against Fulham is not unbelievable. Fulham scoring 8 against Arsenal is ridiculously unrealistic, considering it wasn't a bunch of kids playing. If it were the result of some incredibly detailed, ingenious tactical ploy by mdbussen which he had spent many real-life weeks devising then fair enough, but it seems that he just whacked it on Overload and hoped for the best, being 3-0 down on aggregate after 10 minutes of the second leg.

I don't think anyone has denied defending needs work. No need to proove it any further. But thanks, that looks like a stunning game :-)

I don't think that this really proves anything at all, apart from that when you play 'overload' for the whole game, you end up conceding a lot of goals and scoring a lot of goals, which many of us could have guessed in the first place.

The scoreline isn't terribly realistic admittedly but then neither were your tactics. I also disagree that you 'shouldn't have even had a chance in this match' once down to 10 men. It's football and it's a cup match where anything can happen, plus it frequently happens that a team rally and end up somehow stronger after going a man down. Also, a lot of the goals came in extra-time where tired legs and possible shattered confidence would have made all of the difference. This game just looks like a freak result really, probably made worse by the fact that you played 'overload' the whole match.

Regards,

C.

Aston Villa beating Manchester United 1-0 is hardly the same thing. Now if Aston Villa were a man down and beat united 5-3 perhaps you would have a point. But realistically I can't see that happening.

i think you missed the point here, the utd - villa match was just a point that it dont matter what the chances are of a team winning, its what happens on the day, and freak results do happen, i only used the villa result coz it was very recent and they hadn't won there for over 20 years. i think crouchaldinho put it better than i did. just read what he said, thats almost what i been trying to get across. lol

I don't think that this really proves anything at all, apart from that when you play 'overload' for the whole game, you end up conceding a lot of goals and scoring a lot of goals, which many of us could have guessed in the first place.

The scoreline isn't terribly realistic admittedly but then neither were your tactics. I also disagree that you 'shouldn't have even had a chance in this match' once down to 10 men. It's football and it's a cup match where anything can happen, plus it frequently happens that a team rally and end up somehow stronger after going a man down. Also, a lot of the goals came in extra-time where tired legs and possible shattered confidence would have made all of the difference. This game just looks like a freak result really, probably made worse by the fact that you played 'overload' the whole match.

Regards,

C.

Most sensible post on the thread.

Thankyou Crouchy the Pompey fan, Play Up Pompey!

Football. It's a funny old game

Most sensible post on the thread.

Thankyou Crouchy the Pompey fan, Play Up Pompey!

I'm not a Pompey fan. :confused:

I support St. Albans City.

C.

I'm not a Pompey fan. :confused:

I support St. Albans City.

C.

Don't listen to him kids, he's an avid pompey fan

I dont think more evidence is needed.

Everyone knows it crap

Don't listen to him kids, he's an avid pompey fan

Hey! I've never even been to Portsmouth!

Saints fan here.

I do love Crouchy though. He is a legend and I tend to want whoever he is playing for to do well!

C.

I don't think that this really proves anything at all, apart from that when you play 'overload' for the whole game, you end up conceding a lot of goals and scoring a lot of goals, which many of us could have guessed in the first place.

The scoreline isn't terribly realistic admittedly but then neither were your tactics. I also disagree that you 'shouldn't have even had a chance in this match' once down to 10 men. It's football and it's a cup match where anything can happen, plus it frequently happens that a team rally and end up somehow stronger after going a man down. Also, a lot of the goals came in extra-time where tired legs and possible shattered confidence would have made all of the difference. This game just looks like a freak result really, probably made worse by the fact that you played 'overload' the whole match.

Regards,

C.

I think the point that needs to be made is that Fulham could in real life "play overload" all they wanted against a full strength Arsenal side and 9 times out of 10 they would get beaten badly, and 0 times out of 10 would they win 8-5 having been down to 10 men for almost half the match.

The OP doesn't prove anything other than the fact that there are somtimes freakish results on the game which we all new already. If this kind of score was a regular occurance you might have a point.

The result is unrealistic because the tactics you used were unrealistic. How many times have you seen a side play 1 at the back?

The OP doesn't prove anything other than the fact that there are somtimes freakish results on the game which we all new already. If this kind of score was a regular occurance you might have a point.

I don't mind freakish results once in a while - after all, it is football and anything can happen!

But I'm afraid the game in question went beyond the realm of "freakish result" into the realm of "impossibility". I can (sort of) believe this result happening in an 11v11 game but for the side that is a man down to win 8-5 is, frankly, ridiculous.

I think the point that needs to be made is that Fulham could in real life "play overload" all they wanted against a full strength Arsenal side and 9 times out of 10 they would get beaten badly, and 0 times out of 10 would they win 8-5 having been down to 10 men for almost half the match.

Well, first of all, the opening post claims that it offers proof that 'defending is shambolic'. I'm saying that it doesn't offer proof of anything apart from the fact that if you play 'overload' for 90 minutes, you're bound to get a bit of a random result with a lot of goals.

Secondly, I always find it interesting that people want to make a comparison with FM and real life when they have done something incredibly unrealistic and bizarre in the game. It doesn't really make any sense to me. Unrealistic tactics here have produced a freakish and unrealistic result.

Finally, all we really learn from this thread is that the opening poster doesn't really understand what the 'overload' strategy does and that he got a freakish result one time when he used it for the whole of a cup match against Arsenal.

Regards,

C.

I agree with you MDBussen, some of the responses defending that kind of unrealistic result is laughable imho.

I've been playing this game since the early 1990's, it is now 2009 and you would have thought they would have worked on this ME when they bring out a release year after year.

The result is unrealistic because the tactics you used were unrealistic. How many times have you seen a side play 1 at the back?

Technically you could argue that a sweeper formation is 1 at the back but I'll leave that discussion to the academics

The reason nobody every plays 1 at the back the way I played it in this game is because you would get absolutely murdered on the counter. As I should have been.

So let me get this straight. You played 'overload' all game and, for some of the game, you were only playing 1 defender. And now you're complaining about the defending in the game. Good one.

I think there is a known issue with second legs of 2-legged ties.

I think there is a known issue with second legs of 2-legged ties.

Is it that if you play 'overload' with only one centre-back, you get weird results involving a lot of goals?

Well, first of all, the opening post claims that it offers proof that 'defending is shambolic'. I'm saying that it doesn't offer proof of anything apart from the fact that if you play 'overload' for 90 minutes, you're bound to get a bit of a random result with a lot of goals.

I'll agree with you there inasmuch as playing overload for 90 minutes will probably result in loads of goals and slightly freaky results. My big problem with this is that a side who are a man down playing with an all-out attacking mentality should be shredded to bits by a good team such as Arsenal.

Secondly, I always find it interesting that people want to make a comparison with FM and real life when they have done something incredibly unrealistic and bizarre in the game. It doesn't really make any sense to me. Unrealistic tactics here have produced a freakish and unrealistic result.

FM is intended to be a simulation of real life football matches. "Unrealistic" tactics should produce a realistic result! Fulham playing "overload" strategy with 10 men in Arsenal in real life would get destroyed. This should also happen in FML, regardless of how "realistic" you deem the tactics to be.

And certainly going to an all-out attacking mentality being 3-0 down in the second leg of the knockout round of a cup match is in fact a "realistic" tactic?

Finally, all we really learn from this thread is that the opening poster doesn't really understand what the 'overload' strategy does and that he got a freakish result one time when he used it for the whole of a cup match against Arsenal.

I don't pretend to fully understand all of the tactical instructions and shouts in the new tactics creator but I do have an understanding of what the "overload" team strategy entails, thank you. Perhaps if you were to actually supply hard evidence rather than personal insults and hand-waving dismissals I would be more inclined to take your arguments seriously.

I think there is a known issue with second legs of 2-legged ties.

Like in 2009 then!

I'll agree with you there inasmuch as playing overload for 90 minutes will probably result in loads of goals and slightly freaky results. My big problem with this is that a side who are a man down playing with an all-out attacking mentality should be shredded to bits by a good team such as Arsenal.

FM is intended to be a simulation of real life football matches. "Unrealistic" tactics should produce a realistic result! Fulham playing "overload" strategy with 10 men in Arsenal in real life would get destroyed. This should also happen in FML, regardless of how "realistic" you deem the tactics to be.

And certainly going to an all-out attacking mentality being 3-0 down in the second leg of the knockout round of a cup match is in fact a "realistic" tactic?

I don't pretend to fully understand all of the tactical instructions and shouts in the new tactics creator but I do have an understanding of what the "overload" team strategy entails, thank you. Perhaps if you were to actually supply hard evidence rather than personal insults and hand-waving dismissals I would be more inclined to take your arguments seriously.

Good reply bud.

I think there is a known issue with second legs of 2-legged ties.

Not sure this is true to be honest. I think there was in the old match engine (fm09) but the effect has been toned down in the FM10 match engine.

unlucky mate

mdbussen - here is a description of the 'overload' strategy from the T&T '10 document:

Overload: The exact opposite of contain, overload looks to flood the opposition with wave after wave of attacks. Caution is thrown to the wind, and everyone is told to bomb forward. Again, playing overload for 90 minutes is likely to result in a fair few goals being let in, but for controlled bursts at 5-10 minutes at a time, or when chasing goals late on, it can break down the opposition just enough to get the desired result.

Most Useful: Late on in the game when in desperate need of a goal; against ultra-defensive teams.

I don't think playing with one defender and using 'overload' for 90 minutes is a realistic tactic at all.

Anyway, just to clarify, I've at no point claimed that this result is realistic. In fact I said the opposite. I have merely responded to the main thrust of your thread and I quote the title '...proof that the ME defending is shambolic'. I am simply arguing that you have proved absolutely nothing apart from that an unrealistic tactic can produce a random, freakish and unrealistic result.

If you want me to agree with you that the result is random and unrealistic then I most certainly do. But I don't think that it is fair to make a comparison between FM and real life when you have actually done something incredibly unrealistic and bizarre yourself (like playing with one centre-back and overloading for 90 minutes).

I don't really know where you think this thread will go really. It's just a freak result, exacerbated by your strange tactical choices. It's a computer game and quite naturally it's ultimately flawed. You only have to look at something like Tylerbode's tactics from last year, which I understand exploited a flaw in the match engine and therefore produced unrealistic results in favour of the team using it. FM is never going to be perfect and if your input is random and bizarre, as it was in this case, it is going to throw you a few random and freakish results now and then.

Regards,

C.

wow. and to mthink m strikers Gignac and Hoarau fail so many goals one on one.. btw just played against seville for the CL and lost 5-1. Kanoute at 59% scored 3 goals. yes, Kanoute the man of the 13 finish, and Adriano scored from a free kick (11 atribute). Gignac 14, sessegnon 14, vuckevic 17, beckham 18, don't go anywhere close to adriano.. sigh.. just venting frustration..

Crouch:

It does not matter if it was unrealistic of him to play for 90 minutes with one centarback and "overload". That was not the core of his example. The core of his post is that despite the fact that he played an unrealistic tactic, he should not in fact managed to score 8 goals against Arsenal with only 10 men, regardless of tactic. Whatever tactics Roy Hodgson had chosen IRL, he will never managed to score 8 goals against Arsenal with only 10 men. In reality, if Hodgson had used "overload" against Wegner, Wegner will probably change his tactic immediately, or in the wake of the first goal from Fulham, and then punished Fulham. As it appears in this example Wegner looks like a complete idiot without a hint of football knowledge and understanding.

Can I ask you something Crouch, do you think such a thing could happen to you in FM if you were Arsenal? I guess you would made changes immediately after they go "overload" and punished Fulham terrible without any more goals against you. It means basically that you are better manager than Wegner? When you are able to make rational tactical changes, why could not manager of Wegner`s reputation do the same in this case with simple tactical moves and punish Fulham? Something is very wrong here, I suspect bad coding of the use of tactics from the AI managers.

I'm not a Pompey fan. :confused:

I support St. Albans City.

C.

Lol, I had seen you post something about loving the 'Saints' before, so I assumed you were a Southampton fan!

Lol, I had seen you post something about loving the 'Saints' before, so I assumed you were a Southampton fan!

Can you cut out this off topic crap?

Can you cut out this off topic crap?

Sorry sir, didn't realise you were a mod.

I fear you are wasting your time mdbussen.

Any point that has an issue with the game gets trolled by one of 3 posters and you just got one of them.

Get as much evidence as you want but he wont listen lol

Well, first of all, the opening post claims that it offers proof that 'defending is shambolic'. I'm saying that it doesn't offer proof of anything apart from the fact that if you play 'overload' for 90 minutes, you're bound to get a bit of a random result with a lot of goals.

Secondly, I always find it interesting that people want to make a comparison with FM and real life when they have done something incredibly unrealistic and bizarre in the game. It doesn't really make any sense to me. Unrealistic tactics here have produced a freakish and unrealistic result.

Finally, all we really learn from this thread is that the opening poster doesn't really understand what the 'overload' strategy does and that he got a freakish result one time when he used it for the whole of a cup match against Arsenal.

Regards,

C.

Based on your logic, all that managers in real life will need to do to improve their chances of getting a result in this sort of situation then, is to try and get a man sent off, then play one at the back and overload? Obviously, such an unrealstic input will affect the outcome of the game in such a way as to through the game into the lap of the gods and a goal fest on both sides.

You are not informing anyone of anything by stating that FM is a computer game and is flawed - we know this. However, it strives to be as realistic as possible, and many users would like it to be.

As I have previously stated, if Fulham did the the above in real life then they would not score 8 and win the game.

Something is very wrong here, I suspect bad coding of the use of tactics from the AI managers.

Jascko and Law Man, I'm responding to the title of the thread which claims to have 'proof' that the ME defending is 'shambolic'. This claim is made despite the fact that the opening poster claims to have used one centre-back for some of the game and the 'overload' strategy for 90 minutes plus extra-time.

I am simply arguing that this thread proves absolutely nothing apart from that an unrealistic tactic can produce a random, freakish and unrealistic result. I think we probably all knew that anyway.

To be honest, this one result doesn't even give us anything significant to talk about. We know next to nothing about the match, the tactics (apart from the one cente-back and 'overload' strategy), the state of the two sides in terms of condition and morale and so on and so forth. You cannot take any significance from, or 'prove' anything, from one freakish result.

By all means, the opening poster could test this tactic of playing one centre-back and 'overload' for every match over, say, 40 matches. If there is then a problem with unrealistic results, he should definitely report it as a potential issue. It will be nothing more than an exploit of the match engine probably due to the 'overloading' nature of the tactic. That will be at the very worst. Otherwise, I suspect that this is going to be one freakish result and a statistical insignificance.

As it stands, the thread isn't going to go anywhere and it doesn't 'prove' anything at all.

Can you cut out this off topic crap?

No need for this rudeness.

I fear you are wasting your time mdbussen.

Any point that has an issue with the game gets trolled by one of 3 posters and you just got one of them.

Get as much evidence as you want but he wont listen lol

The definition of a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

I am contributing to the discussion without any desire to provoke other users. I am also posting in a calm and non-emotional way. In this thread, I am merely playing devil's advocate.

The only person trolling in this thread is you. Your message is designed to wind up the recipient and to get an emotional response. You contribute nothing to the conversation and your only intention is to provoke. Thus, we can say that the only troll in this thread is you. (Note that you are the one with an infraction and not me).

Regards,

C.

Based on your logic, all that managers in real life will need to do to improve their chances of getting a result in this sort of situation then, is to try and get a man sent off, then play one at the back and overload? Obviously, such an unrealstic input will affect the outcome of the game in such a way as to through the game into the lap of the gods and a goal fest on both sides.

I think you have missed my point about comparing FM to real life above.

However, it strives to be as realistic as possible, and many users would like it to be.

I agree with you. I would like it to be as realistic as possible too.

I've agreed that this is an unrealistic and freakish result. I'm hardly going to argue otherwise, am I!

What I take issue with is the title of this thread and the idea that this one freakish result proves anything. It simply doesn't.

It's also nothing new to say that doing unusual things in FM can produce weird results. That's been the basis for many popular tactics over the years. There seem to be less this year though, so the match engine must be getting harder to exploit.

What I guess irritates me about threads like this is that they claim something that they cannot deliver. The title is hysterical and has little to do with the contents. I also think that if the user believes that there is a genuine problem, a thread with a PKM in the bugs forum would be the best thing to do. That way the game can be improved if there is an issue.

The chances are that this was a freakish result. The right combination of player morale, motivation, condition may have exacerbated the nature of the result in favour of Fulham. Even little things like the weather may have had an impact. There is a chance that if the opening poster tried this in a different match, he would have got absolutely thrashed. We don't know whether certain hidden stats combined with other factors and the tactical choices to create this freak result. I couldn't say and nobody can reach any kind of conclusion from this one instance of a freakish and bizarre result.

Regards,

C.

This contains no 'proof' of anything as Crouch has said. Put your actual proof up and we (and I'm sure SI) will look at it and comment constructively.

I once played a whole season on overload.

I had the best defence in the league. Realistic?

To the OP's arguement about the impossibility fo Fulham thrashing Arensal I say "Your arguement sir, I refute it thus!", to paraphrase the great Dr. Johnson. If a semi-pro team can beat a reasonably full-strength Madrid 4-0, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Fulham can beat Arsenal 8-5. I would rate it unliekly, but not unrealistic, especially with the tactics used.

I once played a whole season on overload.

I had the best defence in the league. Realistic?

You did? screenshot please.

I once played a whole season on overload.

I had the best defence in the league. Realistic?

That is probably the biggest lie of the day! Congratulations, you win this sarcastic post

I think Fulham would get slaughtered 99/100 times with the way he set the team to play (especially after playing with only one man back in extra time and sending off). such scenario would maybe happen once in 100 years, but it doesn't prove that ME is broken.

upload PKM in bugs forum.

I think Fulham would get slaughtered 99/100 times with the way he set the team to play (especially after playing with only one man back in extra time and sending off). such scenario would maybe happen once in 100 years, but it doesn't prove that ME is broken.

Indeed. Maybe it'd only happen once in a hundred. Maybe only once in a thousand. Maybe even only once in a million. But if you think about how many copies of FM there are out there, and how many games are being played, sooner or later, that one in a million is gonna come up at some point. If it comes up for someone who's already frustrated with the game, and is a member of these forums, then, well, we get a thread like this.

Now, I'm not saying that the ME doesn't have some problems, but pulling up a one off result, no matter how unlikely it is, doesn't prove anything.

Jascko and Law Man, I'm responding to the title of the thread which claims to have 'proof' that the ME defending is 'shambolic'. This claim is made despite the fact that the opening poster claims to have used one centre-back for some of the game and the 'overload' strategy for 90 minutes plus extra-time.

I am simply arguing that this thread proves absolutely nothing apart from that an unrealistic tactic can produce a random, freakish and unrealistic result. I think we probably all knew that anyway.

To be honest, this one result doesn't even give us anything significant to talk about. We know next to nothing about the match, the tactics (apart from the one cente-back and 'overload' strategy), the state of the two sides in terms of condition and morale and so on and so forth. You cannot take any significance from, or 'prove' anything, from one freakish result.

By all means, the opening poster could test this tactic of playing one centre-back and 'overload' for every match over, say, 40 matches. If there is then a problem with unrealistic results, he should definitely report it as a potential issue. It will be nothing more than an exploit of the match engine probably due to the 'overloading' nature of the tactic. That will be at the very worst. Otherwise, I suspect that this is going to be one freakish result and a statistical insignificance.

As it stands, the thread isn't going to go anywhere and it doesn't 'prove' anything at all.

The post proves that high profile manager like Wegner in this game do elementare tactical error compare with IRL. All managers can make tactical errors, but here we talking about serious errors that are difficult to imagine Wegner doing IRL. The random results happens. Fulham may well beat Arsenal under normal circumstances IRL, but not under the variables presented in this thread. In this example Fulham scores 8 goals against Arsenal with 10 men and the "overload" tactic, scenario where we human managers, if we had controled Arsenal, would easaly destroyed Fulham. Something that apparently does not apply for Wenger.

You have not answered my question, do you think this could happen to you if you were in control of Arsenal under such circumstances? The only thing you did in this case is to spred a bunch of strawman, therefore there is nothing that suggests that you have anything rational to make.

No need for this rudeness.

This guy was spreading troll in several other thread, and have not said a damn thing constructive in this thread either. Why should I then act humble? To be honest I should reported him to the mods. If he continues in the same track, I would have to. The only reason why you defend him is because he licks your ass. Well, I m sorry that not everybody feels doing the same.

Jascko and Law Man, I'm responding to the title of the thread which claims to have 'proof' that the ME defending is 'shambolic'. This claim is made despite the fact that the opening poster claims to have used one centre-back for some of the game and the 'overload' strategy for 90 minutes plus extra-time.

I am simply arguing that this thread proves absolutely nothing apart from that an unrealistic tactic can produce a random, freakish and unrealistic result. I think we probably all knew that anyway.

To be honest, this one result doesn't even give us anything significant to talk about. We know next to nothing about the match, the tactics (apart from the one cente-back and 'overload' strategy), the state of the two sides in terms of condition and morale and so on and so forth. You cannot take any significance from, or 'prove' anything, from one freakish result.

By all means, the opening poster could test this tactic of playing one centre-back and 'overload' for every match over, say, 40 matches. If there is then a problem with unrealistic results, he should definitely report it as a potential issue. It will be nothing more than an exploit of the match engine probably due to the 'overloading' nature of the tactic. That will be at the very worst. Otherwise, I suspect that this is going to be one freakish result and a statistical insignificance.

As it stands, the thread isn't going to go anywhere and it doesn't 'prove' anything at all.

It seems that your largest issue with this thread isn't the contents at all but rather the title, which, I will admit, is a bit sensationalist Certainly I don't think one match "proves" anything. And I take your point about how complaining about defending is somewhat farcical when I managed to "only" get 5 scored on me a man down against arsenal.

I'll try and do a more thorough post detailing the specific goals in this contest when I get a chance (I'm at work at the moment) and I would be more than happy to upload a PKM in the bugs forum (can anybody provide me details on how to do this?) since I think the result really points to some flaws in either the match engine itself or the tactics that AI managers are applying to it.

You also seem to be harping on the fact that I played "1 at the back" a lot - I should really clarify this statement. After Hughes was sent off my team converted to playing a 4-3-2 and stayed in this formation for nearly the whole match. It was only in the last 15 min of overtime - when my team needed to score 2 to win - that I threw caution to the wind and played 1 central defender with 2 wingbacks (pushed ahead of the central defensive line). Also, I actually didn't play "overload" for the whole game. There was a period of 5-15 min where my side were ahead on aggregate and I adopted a more defensive stance, until Arsenal equalized and I was pushed to attack once more.

The main problem I see with this match is that a 10-man side would never score 6 goals in a match against a reasonably talented side like Arsenal, regardless of their tactics (I'm discounting the 2 goals I scored when it was still 11v11). I will be happy to prove this by posting screens of some of the more shambolic defending once I get home and have some time to go back through the game.

Try concentrating less on the specific wording of my thread title and more on the result itself and let's have a good discussion about whether such a result is possible and what it means for the FM10 match engine.

* by the way I have it on good authority that there have been numerous defensive fixes to the match engine for the patch that will be 10.2. This may end up rendering the discussion in this thread moot but regardless at least we know that SI have acknowledged the problem with defending in the current match engine and will be fixing it shortly