PDA

View Full Version : It's time for a leap of faith



Pages : 1 [2]

Blaupunkt
08-01-2010, 20:29
Also, bear in mind that this is just an example of how complicated real life is (never black and white) and how tactical decisions play a small role in the bigger picture of team management. I am not writting this as a suggestion of what should be introduced in a game yet. OK? Let us move on.

but i have to strongly disagree with that comment in a "football" environment. one of the biggest problems with in the English game IMO is the total lack of real tactical understanding, this was shown during the 80' and early 90's with English teams played a long ball system that totally bypassed the midfield and worked on the percentages Watford under Graham Taylor being a good example imo, Yes he might have been successful to a degree but this type of tactical setup put the English game back 10 years or more when comparing our game to that of the Dutch, Italians etc.

and why do you keep saying, "OK, let us move on" as if you are giving some sort of seminar and we have come to hear you speak ? what would you like to move on to exactly ?

crouchaldinho
08-01-2010, 20:32
Blaupunkt, you're spot on and also making me laugh a little with your last comment. :D

edgar555
08-01-2010, 20:34
Blaupunkt, I hear you loud and clear. This is something I just posted on another thread(asking what is more important team building vs tactics)

"You can't have one without the other, however, very good tactics can get you some joy with bobbins players, but it doesn't work the other way round."

For those that need a translation, bobbins = rubbish/poor/not very good.

Now wheres our lecturer gone to take us in another direction? :D

tak
08-01-2010, 20:43
Blaupunkt: I am saying "let's move on" because I am using a whole paragraph from my post over and over again as answer to the same argument.

Now, who will be brave enough to say that this example resembles nothing in real life?

Tomer
08-01-2010, 20:47
Now, who will be brave enough to say that this example resembles nothing in real life?

Fine, I'll sacrifice myself. I find it hard to believe that a lot of managers have to rescue their players from a cocaine addiction or tell on players' mothers to get them in line. Or that sponsors will try to make sure rival players will keep up their drinking.

Go on, let me have it.

tak
08-01-2010, 20:48
lol fair enough. I am not asking if it happens all the time, just if it could happen.

SCIAG
08-01-2010, 20:49
I don't remember that happening in real life.

More to the point, do you have any idea how hard it would be to code such an extraordinarily complicated simulation of life? If it was possible, if would have been done by know, and the future of the universe would be known.

edgar555
08-01-2010, 20:50
Tomer, well done, I'd have taken that one as well though!

Tomer
08-01-2010, 20:51
I don't remember that happening in real life.

More to the point, do you have any idea how hard it would be to code such an extraordinarily complicated simulation of life? If it was possible, if would have been done by know, and the future of the universe would be known.

He's not proposing this to be in the game. He just wants to make conversation, I think.

tak
08-01-2010, 20:54
I don't remember that happening in real life.

More to the point, do you have any idea how hard it would be to code such an extraordinarily complicated simulation of life? If it was possible, if would have been done by know, and the future of the universe would be known.

That's OK, many things have happened without me or you remembering them (actually we never know what happens behind the scene)

Bear with me for a while about implementation. I agree it is extremely complicated and not doable.

There is something we need to establish first though. That there are factors with profound effect on team performance that have nothing to do with tactics.

There are also football moments of brilliance that can be explained by a tactical desicion, although this is not the real explanation.

Blaupunkt
08-01-2010, 21:08
TAK: the problem is from where i am standing is, you are not actually answering anything, you are using your own assumptions that the higher up the world of football management you go the less important tactics become and the more important motivational techniques become, when ever someone counters this argument as i and others have done a few times you either totally dismiss it and do not bother to answer directly or indirectly or just repeat your own assumptions.

IF you want to try and change peoples opinion that the higher up the world of football management you go tactics do infact become less important then please show some real life examples and tell us how tactics were less important and not just the odd quote that seems to back up your argument, If you cannot find or do not know of any real life examples then please try and explain why you believe this to be true with out going into some sort of fantasy tale of make believe where a cocaine addicted play boy who loved to party makes a deal with a player he hates to win the champions league while having it off with 2 prostitutes on the way which was organised by his own manager ?!!

you present us with this "wild story" as some sort of evidence of what can happen in real life and seriously expect "us" to take what you are saying seriously ?

i am sure you would get far more support if you clearly wrote down what sort of things you would like adding to the game and what elements in the game currently you would like to see developed with maybe a few suggestions on how these things could be developed.

tak
08-01-2010, 22:06
Hi Blaupunkt

I am really really sorry for not answering all the questions that were asked, I want to go back and do it though. There was a considerable amount of attacks and I could not deal with everything at the same time.

I gave this fictional example to show how can a few factors react with each other in certain way that will produce a football success that has not much (but not nothing at all) to do with tactics. I tried to put some funny bits into it and my attempt at humor was clumsy, I apologise. However, it is a perfectly valid example.

I cannot provide you with any real life examples to show you how many different factors interacted to create a football success that had mainly to do with other things rather than tactics, because I can never be aware of all those factors and their interaction. However, I know of examples that standard tactics but brilliant general management lifted mediocre teams to stardom. I mentioned Greece and some people disagreed. That is fair enough

Bear also in mind that I only mentioned a few factors and a few interactions, but in real life they and their combinations are trillions and they multiply as we are going on higher league levels. It is terribly wrong to explain everything with tactics, although a lot of things can be explained this way.

Now, in terms of relevance of importance, I believe that tactics are not the most important thing in football success. Other people believe they are. However, I got strong reactions by people who categorically dismissed my belief and accused me of ignorance and (most funnily) an incompetence to understand football.

To them, I answered with this little example so that we can move on.

muncherdave
08-01-2010, 22:23
This thread has gotten absolutely ridiculous. Are we here to talk about something that could actually benefit the game or are we here for endless arguments and speculation about the level of players with personal problems needing help from their manager (which is something that seems unlikely we will get any great idea the scale of in the near future)?

Seriously, I'm starting to think tak either just loves arguing, boosting his post count or both.

batata169
08-01-2010, 22:41
Only thing that is wrong is the players' off the ball movement and passing, it needs HUGE improvement.

I think even millie mentioned it on the FM-BRITAIN forums.

Blaupunkt
08-01-2010, 22:58
Hi Blaupunkt

I am really really sorry for not answering all the questions that were asked, I want to go back and do it though. There was a considerable amount of attacks and I could not deal with everything at the same time.

I gave this fictional example to show how can a few factors react with each other in certain way that will produce a football success that has not much (but not nothing at all) to do with tactics. I tried to put some funny bits into it and my attempt at humor was clumsy, I apologise. However, it is a perfectly valid example.

I cannot provide you with any real life examples to show you how many different factors interacted to create a football success that had mainly to do with other things rather than tactics, because I can never be aware of all those factors and their interaction. However, I know of examples that standard tactics but brilliant general management lifted mediocre teams to stardom. I mentioned Greece and some people disagreed. That is fair enough

Bear also in mind that I only mentioned a few factors and a few interactions, but in real life they and their combinations are trillions and they multiply as we are going on higher league levels. It is terribly wrong to explain everything with tactics, although a lot of things can be explained this way.

Now, in terms of relevance of importance, I believe that tactics are not the most important thing in football success. Other people believe they are. However, I got strong reactions by people who categorically dismissed my belief and accused me of ignorance and (most funnily) an incompetence to understand football.

To them, I answered with this little example so that we can move on.

ok, fair enough but i still feel you could explain your own beliefs as to why you say motivation and man management become more important that the implementation of very good tactical approach the higher up the football echelon you go. there is no need to give an assumed real world example as you did with your "story" just clearly state why you believe this to be true.

as for the Greece example, i am sorry to say i am firmly in the "tactics" camp here, that's not to say man management and motivational skills did not play an important roll but to try and claim they were more important than the tactical approach of the Greek team i find some what hard to believe, this is not because some of the members on this forum also believe this to be true but because it has been so well documented by a lot of knowledgeable people who work within the football field, the fact that you dismiss all of this to be untrue and your own opinion to be the correct one i just cannot accept, maybe if you were to try and explain why and how you come to your beliefs then i and others would better understand your point of view, you cannot just say "i am right and you are wrong" and leave it at that.

seeing as you quoted Bill Shankly to try and back up one of your arguments i will leave you with a quote from the great man him self (and no im not a liverpool fan).

"Fire in your belly comes from pride and passion in wearing the red shirt. We don't need to motivate players because each of them is responsible for the performance of the team as a whole. The status of Liverpool's players keeps them motivated."

>>Source of Reference<< (www.shankly.com) :)

nick...
08-01-2010, 23:38
Am i being sensible ambling into the middle of this? Maybe, maybe not...

The Greece example seems to have been done to death - but people are still flogging it, so i thought i'd throw a couple of different examples out there - may not help the conversation, but at least it will give us all something new to discuss...


Example 1 - Sam Allerdyce's Bolton

Big Sam's side was famed for his negative long ball tactics, but his wasn't the only side doing this at the time, although it was certainly the most successful and overachieving. To my mind the main factor for his success was his ability to convince big names and egos to A - sign for a club like Bolton and B - keep them happy at the club and reasonably united - even Nicholas Anelka. His ego management and ability to sell the club to the big names, i would argue, were the crucial factors in Bolton's success in his reign.


Example 2 - Sir Bobby's & Graeme Souness's Newcastle
Bobby Robson's Newcastle consistantly made European and Champions league places, with a squad containing a host of talented, but oft wayward players, including Lee Bowyer, Kieron Dyer and Craig Belamy. I don't intend to knock Sir Bobby's tactical skill in any shape or form, but the drastic dissintegration of fortunes of the club consisting of largely the same players (and the very public disharmony between these) can surely be mainly attributed to the two managers vastly contrasting styles of man-management. Perhaps this example shows that with man-management - like with tactics - the largest and most noticable effect is when it's done badly.



Of course, I could be drastically wrong in my assessment of both of these, but please feel free to discuss, as I think I learnt something I didn't know before during the previous discussions about Greece.

Kindest regards to all.

tak
09-01-2010, 01:10
First of all, I would like to thank nick for providing two examples.


ok, fair enough but i still feel you could explain your own beliefs as to why you say motivation and man management become more important that the implementation of very good tactical approach the higher up the football echelon you go. there is no need to give an assumed real world example as you did with your "story" just clearly state why you believe this to be true.


In a small level team you have less talented players but also less demanding. The fans are less, the media attention very small etc. Despite having not much else to do, tactics are important to overcome technical shortcomings and utilise the little talent you have at your disposal

In the world of big boys you have a lot of work to do dealing with 20 highly paid men in shorts, with fat contracts and celebrity life styles. Tactics are still useful but they become less important because "any old tactic will do", to quote an international manager who wishes to stay anonymous.

Almondo
09-01-2010, 03:55
PLEASE, if you want to disagree or you think I am ignorant or a lunatic or whatever PLEASE DO NOT POST.

tak this thread has been going somewhere and well but saying this has confirmed that you really think that people should only post in your threads if they agree with you. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I thought this was in the General discussion forum so a discussion which has both for and against arguements should be allowed.


You've made all these points, but you haven't given any ideas on how to implement into the game. Do you really think that making all that is feasible? If you do tell us how instead of preaching your so called "ideas." Simply those sort of scenarios are one off. There is no point SI coding that into the game, as it will be used so rarely that the it won't be worth the bother of adding it in. It already includes such things as personal problems with you or other players aswell as struggling to settle in. I agree this could be expanded, but definitely not to anywhere near the kind of depth that you seem to be suggesting.

Matt you're right here. he isn't giving ideas he's just going on about some hypothetical situation he's dreamed up.


Blaupunkt, I hear you loud and clear. This is something I just posted on another thread(asking what is more important team building vs tactics)

"You can't have one without the other, however, very good tactics can get you some joy with bobbins players, but it doesn't work the other way round."

For those that need a translation, bobbins = rubbish/poor/not very good.

Now wheres our lecturer gone to take us in another direction? :D

edgar555 this is exactly the point I was making in my previous post at the end of page 2 of the thread. You know the one about swapping Carlo Anchelotti and Dave Penny around clubs. Also I love the end comment.

@tak. tak I really think you need to just sit back and read through some of your posts in the thread. I understand that you're passionate about what you posted inyour OP but to say things like I quoted at the top of this post really shows your ignorance as to what a discussion really is. This thread which both myself and Tingting tried hard to pull back on track after you went into a war of words with wwfan is still headed off the rails really.

Also your continual critisism of Chrouchaldinho over the first two pages of the thread by stating that he's swore at you and others in threads that he's posted in is quite frankly ridiculous. I've been around the forums for a couple of years now and not once in any thread have I seen him use anyform of curse etc.

You have some good ideas locked up in your brain. Of that there is no doubt but seeing as how you've named the thread "It's time for a leap of Faith", I would have thought that you would have at least taken the time to tell us what this leap of faith could be. Like I've said it's obvious that you're passionate but please instead of telling us all that because we don't agree with you on any point you've made we're wrong, maybe try and take on board that people like Chrouchaldinho, wwfan et al do have valid ideas and points to make.

As others have said if you just tell us not to post if we disagree it seems as though you just want to lecture us on what you believe that the game needs etc. Please remember that no matter how smart or not people are they can actually have some very good ideas and are quite prepared to have an intelligent discussion with you and others around the forums. i have said that you brought up two very good questions earlier in the thread,(once again in my post at the end of the 2nd page) but your total dismissal of points that others make just makes them think that you would prefer it if you could lecture us and we have to agree with you.

Regards

Almondo

edit: Just found this quote from Brian Clough that seems to sum up the attitude taken by tak in the thread "We talk about it for twenty minutes and then we decide I was right."

tak
09-01-2010, 09:13
Hi Almondo

I know my phrase didn't come out very well. I am sure if you look at the essence of what I said, you will realise that I meant sterile disagreement that leads nowhere but to derail this thread. Constructive disagreement is more than welcome.

Best regards,

Blaupunkt
09-01-2010, 10:30
First of all, I would like to thank nick for providing two examples.



In a small level team you have less talented players but also less demanding. The fans are less, the media attention very small etc. Despite having not much else to do, tactics are important to overcome technical shortcomings and utilise the little talent you have at your disposal

In the world of big boys you have a lot of work to do dealing with 20 highly paid men in shorts, with fat contracts and celebrity life styles. Tactics are still useful but they become less important because "any old tactic will do", to quote an international manager who wishes to stay anonymous.

i totally disagree and think you have it the wrong way round, having played rugby and field hockey for local amateur level i can tell you that while there were some tactical planning and discussion for the hockey club i played for motivation seemed more important lower down the leagues you played, the 1st team were just below the National league and pushing for promotion most seasons, at my "peak" i was in the second team and down as "reserve" for the first team, i made the bench a couple of times and i can tell you that the higher up the clubs structure you went (they had 4 teams in leagues 6 teams in total) the more important tactics became.

when playing for the bottom 2 teams 5th's and 6th's tactics were virtually none existent, to the point of, keep it safe with passing, get stuck in, get player X on the ball as much as you can.

i can say the same for the ruby club, i firmly believe this to be true for football which i have played to a degree also but more 5 a side stuff, we used to practise passing in triangles and always having 1 player in space to receive a pass, when coming up against a team who had no tactical plan or were not used to playing against a team like us we could dominate them quite easily with some very basic tactics, no amount of motivation or man management would have made the slightest bit of difference because they did not know how to counter our game plan.

EDIT: why does the international manager want to remain anonymous?

Mitja
09-01-2010, 10:46
Slovenia managed to beat vastly superior Russian side and has qualified for WC. it was totally deserved win by unknown Slovenian manager over one of the best tacticians in the world. there wasn't a single word being said about how Slovenian team tactically outplayed Russians and I really doubt that Kek can compare with Hiddink when it comes to tactical knowledge. it was a win of team spirit and discipline, confidence the new Slovenian manager has managed to put into the team without any star players and great frendship over far better quality team with one of the best managers in the world. believe me not a single word was being said about tactics (which was fantastic) by the media or experts.

Croatia failed to qualify for WC. I don't remeber when Croatia played worse football than in these qualifications, absolute horror to watch, we vitnessed two worst defeats in Croatian football history against England. Bilic has agreed with media and experts analisys of this failure. they agreed the main reasons for it were poor team discipline and motivational factors, tough qualifing group, injuries of key players, luck (a couple of posts in both games against Ukraine), leadership problems after Niko Kovac retired, left back selction problems etc. eventhough team performances were far from the true ability the team has, Bilic was never critisised about tactical factors, only teams selection and squad managment.

Bosnia achieved the best result in their history, almost qualified to WC but lost to Portugal in knockout phase, under the Croatian manager Ciro Blazevic. he managed for the first time in bosnian (football) history to unite all three nations, Croatia achieved their best result with 3rd place in WC'98. Blazevic is known as a fanatic motivator, squad managment expert and for military discipline in his teams. tactically? I think it's enough to say that he never tried to play any other formation than 3-5-2.

jcafcwbb
09-01-2010, 10:49
I have to say at non-league level there are two main ways of preparing your troops.

1) If you're a club with little or no money you fill your squad with big, physical players to try and out-muscle the better teams players. You rely on set pieces and the physical prowess of your players to create chances.

2) If you have a bit of money you get players that are better than the league you are in and even possibly go full time. You rely on your technical advantage telling in the final third of the match.

We spent three miserable years in the Ryman where every week the "tactic" was to have big, physical players outmuscle us. Don't be fooled that lower league has anything approaching tactical insight.

On a way to develop the game - does a player's mental capabilties improve with age and experience? It seems strange that every youngster I get offered - is this because I'm in the CCL2&BSP? - has low technical stats. Surely you would see players with decent footballing skills but with need for the mental skills to be developed. Aaron Lennon is good example of this. He came in with the pace and skill to beat players but lacked the ability to play the final ball or when to pass. He had improved a lot this season possibly due to experience/training.

tak
09-01-2010, 11:38
i totally disagree and think you have it the wrong way round, having played rugby and field hockey for local amateur level i can tell you that while there were some tactical planning and discussion for the hockey club i played for motivation seemed more important lower down the leagues you played, the 1st team were just below the National league and pushing for promotion most seasons, at my "peak" i was in the second team and down as "reserve" for the first team, i made the bench a couple of times and i can tell you that the higher up the clubs structure you went (they had 4 teams in leagues 6 teams in total) the more important tactics became.

when playing for the bottom 2 teams 5th's and 6th's tactics were virtually none existent, to the point of, keep it safe with passing, get stuck in, get player X on the ball as much as you can.

i can say the same for the ruby club, i firmly believe this to be true for football which i have played to a degree also but more 5 a side stuff, we used to practise passing in triangles and always having 1 player in space to receive a pass, when coming up against a team who had no tactical plan or were not used to playing against a team like us we could dominate them quite easily with some very basic tactics, no amount of motivation or man management would have made the slightest bit of difference because they did not know how to counter our game plan.

EDIT: why does the international manager want to remain anonymous?

That's OK Blaupunkt, I cannot argue against your personal experiences. One common misunderstanding though is that I dismiss tactics at the top level. But I don't. What I'm saying is that they become less important than other factors. Of course, tactical miracles can still happen, but at higher levels, the manager needs to do a lot more work than tactical instructions. Many times, this exo-tactical work (jesus, sorry for this crazy word) produces most impressive results than tactics. Many times, brilliant results happen without supreme managerial input.

When I started this thread, I admit I didn't know exactly what I wanted (it's getting better now lol) but I immediately got two types of reactions:

a) Tactics are the most important decider of results by far. For that, I showed a perfectly resonable real life example, where tactics played zero role. I can show more that are not so "ridiculous".

b) Man management and motivation are already in the game. Although I realised I didn't know that player characters existed, again my "ridiculous" example showed that interpersonal, internal and external, interactions as well as events, are so poor in the game that they better start from scratch if they want to create something good. Improving the current ones is a mistake and later I will explain why.

I realise that many people are more than happy with "man-management". That's fine, most people are happy until things evolve to something new. Take crouchaldinho for example. He says that he is instilling a culture in his team. He read Sven's book and wants to create type B players. So, he wants to make them ambitious by pressing "expect a win" and fearless by pressing "we can win this". I am certain that if no "man-management" existed in the game but only one question with two boxes "What you want to instill: a) More ambition, b) Less fear", crouchaldinho would use those two boxes and fantasize he is instilling culture according to Sven's book.

I don't have any problem with that, and please crouchaldinho don't bother start your irony and insults, i find it wonderful, that is how all of us play FM more or less. We fantasize. That is why I love this game. However, we cannot include our fantasy as an argument when someone proposes an improvement and say "oh it's in the game: yesterday after the match I told my players that despite having won 2-1, it was unacceptable to play so good but neglect the defence. We even conceded an equaliser and thank God the linesman raised his flag." You ask "how did you say all that?". They reply "oh it's in the game, I told them I was dissapointed"

Matt123456
09-01-2010, 12:00
That's OK Blaupunkt, I cannot argue against your personal experiences. One common misunderstanding though is that I dismiss tactics at the top level. But I don't. What I'm saying is that they become less important than other factors. Of course, tactical miracles can still happen, but at higher levels, the manager needs to do a lot more work than tactical instructions. Many times, this exo-tactical work (jesus, sorry for this crazy word) produces most impressive results than tactics. Many times, brilliant results happen without supreme managerial input.

When I started this thread, I admit I didn't know exactly what I wanted (it's getting better now lol) but I immediately got two types of reactions:

a) Tactics are the most important decider of results by far. For that, I showed a perfectly resonable real life example, where tactics played zero role. I can show more that are not so "ridiculous".

b) Man management and motivation are already in the game. Although I realised I didn't know that player characters existed, again my "ridiculous" example showed that interpersonal, internal and external, interactions as well as events, are so poor in the game that they better start from scratch if they want to create something good. Improving the current ones is a mistake and later I will explain why.

I realise that many people are more than happy with "man-management". That's fine, most people are happy until things evolve to something new. Take crouchaldinho for example. He says that he is instilling a culture in his team. He read Sven's book and wants to create type B players. So, he wants to make them ambitious by pressing "expect a win" and fearless by pressing "we can win this". I am certain that if no "man-management" existed in the game but only one question with two boxes "What you want to instill: a) More ambition, b) Less fear", crouchaldinho would use those two boxes and fantasize he is instilling culture according to Sven's book.

I don't have any problem with that, and please crouchaldinho don't bother start your irony and insults, i find it wonderful, that is how all of us play FM more or less. We fantasize. That is why I love this game. However, we cannot include our fantasy as an argument when someone proposes an improvement and say "oh it's in the game: yesterday after the match I told my players that despite having won 2-1, it was unacceptable to play so good but neglect the defence. We even conceded an equaliser and thank God the linesman raised his flag." You ask "how did you say all that?". They reply "oh it's in the game, I told them I was dissapointed"

I think we should but this tactics argument to bed once and for all. In lower league football tactics take a back seat because players don't have the technical prowess to be able to function in complicated tactical set ups. For example, if you were playing in non-league football you would tell your winger to lump the ball into the box and hope your big striker got on the end of it. If Christiano Ronaldo was your winger, you would ask him to cross it to the far post when X happened, player a driven deep cross when Y happened, cut inside and shoot when Z happened etc. There are much more tactical options available to you at higher levels because the players are better and can carry out a wider range of tactical options. To say that the emphasis changes is stupid and has been proved wrong time and time again.
At the lower levels your managerial career relies on you to be able to creat a TEAM. Arguably that is the case of in all levels of football, but in lower leagues where your players don't have enough individual skill using man-management to create team spirit and co-operation is Paramount! What you're trying to say is at higher levels the manager has to manage the big ego's of his superstars. But that is the case of all levels. All teams will have a player with a big ego, and the manager will either get it under control, let it run free or kick the player out of the team. You have to rememer that players have personalities at all levels. As you go down to non-league footballs players don't suddenly lose their personality. They can be demanding and as difficult as the most arrogant, richest footballer.
What you haven't come to realise is that at higher levels EVERYTHING becomes more important. In essence the managers have a bigger job, so more tactics are needed, more man-management is needed etc. The proportion doesn't change - the manager just has to do more for each.

crouchaldinho
09-01-2010, 12:07
The opening poster can try to reduce my argument to the point of absurdity if he wants (no doubt, in order to wind me up, as is his wont) but it just makes him look silly.

I would still like to know the opening poster's thoughts regarding the idea that possessing even a basic knowledge of the existing content of Football Manager might be helpful to him in reaching conclusions about how well man management and motivation is reflected in the game.

So far, I feel our 'lecturer' has shown a basic ignorance of Football Manager and has come up with some of the most absurd suggestions I have ever read. I'm still awaiting a breakthrough! Meanwhile, some of the most interesting points that this thread has to offer have, in fact, arrived when the opening poster was away. Indeed, I have actually come up with more ideas than the OP in this thread and I'm supposed to be the 'bad' guy, an apologist for SI (allegedly!), while this is apparently the opening poster's 'leap of faith'? :D

tak
09-01-2010, 12:19
I think we should but this tactics argument to bed once and for all. In lower league football tactics take a back seat because players don't have the technical prowess to be able to function in complicated tactical set ups. For example, if you were playing in non-league football you would tell your winger to lump the ball into the box and hope your big striker got on the end of it. If Christiano Ronaldo was your winger, you would ask him to cross it to the far post when X happened, player a driven deep cross when Y happened, cut inside and shoot when Z happened etc. There are much more tactical options available to you at higher levels because the players are better and can carry out a wider range of tactical options. To say that the emphasis changes is stupid and has been proved wrong time and time again.
At the lower levels your managerial career relies on you to be able to creat a TEAM. Arguably that is the case of in all levels of football, but in lower leagues where your players don't have enough individual skill using man-management to create team spirit and co-operation is Paramount! What you're trying to say is at higher levels the manager has to manage the big ego's of his superstars. But that is the case of all levels. All teams will have a player with a big ego, and the manager will either get it under control, let it run free or kick the player out of the team. You have to rememer that players have personalities at all levels. As you go down to non-league footballs players don't suddenly lose their personality. They can be demanding and as difficult as the most arrogant, richest footballer.
What you haven't come to realise is that at higher levels EVERYTHING becomes more important. In essence the managers have a bigger job, so more tactics are needed, more man-management is needed etc. The proportion doesn't change - the manager just has to do more for each.

That's very interesting. When you have a player like Ronaldo you can go ahead and give all those instructions but they don't matter much because Ronaldo will use his high football intelligence to create the best out of a given situation. Managing Ronaldo has not so much to do with telling him how to react in cases A, B or C. It is more important to create an environment where the player can focus and his talent can flourish (although instructions still have a role to play).

tak
09-01-2010, 12:20
Slovenia managed to beat vastly superior Russian side and has qualified for WC. it was totally deserved win by unknown Slovenian manager over one of the best tacticians in the world. there wasn't a single word being said about how Slovenian team tactically outplayed Russians and I really doubt that Kek can compare with Hiddink when it comes to tactical knowledge. it was a win of team spirit and discipline, confidence the new Slovenian manager has managed to put into the team without any star players and great frendship over far better quality team with one of the best managers in the world. believe me not a single word was being said about tactics (which was fantastic) by the media or experts.

Croatia failed to qualify for WC. I don't remeber when Croatia played worse football than in these qualifications, absolute horror to watch, we vitnessed two worst defeats in Croatian football history against England. Bilic has agreed with media and experts analisys of this failure. they agreed the main reasons for it were poor team discipline and motivational factors, tough qualifing group, injuries of key players, luck (a couple of posts in both games against Ukraine), leadership problems after Niko Kovac retired, left back selction problems etc. eventhough team performances were far from the true ability the team has, Bilic was never critisised about tactical factors, only teams selection and squad managment.

Bosnia achieved the best result in their history, almost qualified to WC but lost to Portugal in knockout phase, under the Croatian manager Ciro Blazevic. he managed for the first time in bosnian (football) history to unite all three nations, Croatia achieved their best result with 3rd place in WC'98. Blazevic is known as a fanatic motivator, squad managment expert and for military discipline in his teams. tactically? I think it's enough to say that he never tried to play any other formation than 3-5-2.

Superb contribution. Thanks Mitja.

edgar555
09-01-2010, 12:22
Matt123456: You say tactics are less important at lower levels, but your argument is flawed. Just because you are only telling your player to lump it into the box, instead of giving him 3 options, that is still tactics, just reduced to their basic form. However it still takes an intelligent manager to assess the level of their squad and decide whether to use simple instructions or more complex ones.
At whatever level you play, tactics are crucial, hence the level of involvement in FM.
Crouch: I fear you'll have a long wait for the 'leap of faith'.

tak
09-01-2010, 12:26
Matt123456: You say tactics are less important at lower levels, but your argument is flawed. Just because you are only telling your player to lump it into the box, instead of giving him 3 options, that is still tactics, just reduced to their basic form. However it still takes an intelligent manager to assess the level of their squad and decide whether to use simple instructions or more complex ones.
At whatever level you play, tactics are crucial, hence the level of involvement in FM.
Crouch: I fear you'll have a long wait for the 'leap of faith'.

That is very interesting edgar. How important were tactics in the example I gave?

Matt123456
09-01-2010, 12:27
That's very interesting. When you have a player like Ronaldo you can go ahead and give all those instructions but they don't matter much because Ronaldo will use his high football intelligence to create the best out of a given situation. Managing Ronaldo has not so much to do with telling him how to react in cases A, B or C. It is more important to create an environment where the player can focus and his talent can flourish (although instructions still have a role to play).

That is also true to a degree. However they would still matter because Ronaldo would have to follow them to a certain extent. But my point was that you can't give all these instructions at lower levels because the players simply don't have the abillity to carry them out. Nor can you let their talents flourish because they don't really have the creative ability.
I have just also realised that you have been contradicting yourself throughout the entire post. You said the tactics are more important down the leagues, then you use the example of Greece as a small team who beat a large team down to purely man-management. Greece are the equivalent of a non-league team - who by your own admissions should rely more on tactics - yet you have categorically said that it was man-management that enabled them to beat higher teams. :confused:
Please explain this incredible inconsistency. If you can't your whole argument has just been disproved.

Matt123456
09-01-2010, 12:33
Matt123456: You say tactics are less important at lower levels, but your argument is flawed. Just because you are only telling your player to lump it into the box, instead of giving him 3 options, that is still tactics, just reduced to their basic form. However it still takes an intelligent manager to assess the level of their squad and decide whether to use simple instructions or more complex ones.
At whatever level you play, tactics are crucial, hence the level of involvement in FM.
Crouch: I fear you'll have a long wait for the 'leap of faith'.

Ah I didn't mean to say that they were less important. I was trying to point out that at higher levels there are more tactical options available to managers. Because really there are two types of tactics. There are team tactics and individual tactics. Team tactics are relatively similar whatever level you play at, but individual tactics become a lot more detail and in-depth as you rise up the leagues. FM simulates the team tactics and a simplified version of individual tactics, but it does not simulate more complicate individual tactics. And I think that for most casualplayers that is probably a good thing because it would make the game too hard or fiddly and I also know that it would be too difficult to do. I have no problem with the level of involvement in FM. :thup: I love the game.

crouchaldinho
09-01-2010, 12:34
That is also true. But my point was that you can't give all these instructions at lower levels because the players simply don't have the abillity to carry them out. Nor can you let their talents flourish because they don't really have the creative ability.

I think both arguments are flawed to be honest. It's not true to say that players at lower levels don't have the ability to carry out complex tactical instructions. There are intelligent players in non-League. There are also very technical ex-pros who actually rely more on their technical abilities than the physical side of their game. There are also talented players (relative to their level) who are able to operate in creative roles.

Matt123456
09-01-2010, 12:41
I think both arguments are flawed to be honest. It's not true to say that players at lower levels don't have the ability to carry out complex tactical instructions. There are intelligent players in non-League. There are also very technical ex-pros who actually rely more on their technical abilities than the physical side of their game. There are also talented players (relative to their level) who are able to operate in creative roles.

Yes but it is all relative. Compared to the higher levels the players at the low levels don't have the technical ability to function on the same scale. But compared to school-boy players they will be able to follow much more complicated instructions. You would be able to give Xavi much more complicated instructions than the equivalent lower-league playmakers. However there is also the view that you would trust him to do what was right. In the end it all depends on the manager and his management style. If I was a manager for example I would probably take the OCD, perfecting down to every detail type of management. There are some who would prefer to give a rough tactical plan and sign players with the ability to improvise.

edgar555
09-01-2010, 12:43
That is very interesting edgar. How important were tactics in the example I gave?

Which example tak? The 'Rony as alkie' example? Please, don't get me started. Which one?

As for you saying that crouch can't create the 'type B' environment in his squad and that its in his head. Nonsense. Using discipline, team talks, press conferences, scouting for players with the right mentality etc you most definitely can build that kind of squad. I know because I have done for the last 2 iterations of FM very succesfully.

matt123456: thanks for that, having re read your post I realise we are pretty much on the same page.

crouchaldinho
09-01-2010, 12:52
When I started this thread, I admit I didn't know exactly what I wanted

And you still don't! :D


I immediately got two types of reactions:

a) Tactics are the most important decider of results by far.

Show me who argued this?

I think you're making this up. Nobody, as far as I know, argued this.


For that, I showed a perfectly resonable real life example, where tactics played zero role.

It was utterly absurd, not reasonable, and what's more is you didn't explain how such a thing would work in the game.


b) Man management and motivation are already in the game. Although I realised I didn't know that player characters existed,

You've shown a basic ignorance of anything that is in the game in terms of man management and motivation. I'll ask you again, do you think it might help you to actually play Football Manager and to gain a knowledge of what is already represented in the game?


again my "ridiculous" example showed that interpersonal, internal and external, interactions as well as events, are so poor in the game that they better start from scratch if they want to create something good.

No it didn't. It showed that you have an over-active imagination, if it indeed showed anything! :D

If you want a start from scratch then please tell us what it is you expect to see in the game. So far, it's just three pages of you waffling on about nothing.

Seeing as you don't even know the basics of what is included in the game, I'd also love to know how you reached the conclusion? :confused:


Improving the current ones is a mistake and later I will explain why.

I cannot wait for this. I really cannot wait. :rolleyes:

crouchaldinho
09-01-2010, 12:56
Based on Tak's example, I've got a good game for him: Social Worker 2010.

:D

Tomer
09-01-2010, 12:57
If you want a start from scratch then please tell us what it is you expect to see in the game. So far, it's just three pages of you waffling on about nothing.



Exactly. How about we leave tak alone for a little bit so he doesn't feel he has to defend himself all the time (everyone has voiced their opinion by now) and he can work on those suggestions he's been promising. If they're any bit as good as his example it could become post of the year!

crouchaldinho
09-01-2010, 13:00
Exactly. How about we leave tak alone for a little bit so he doesn't feel he has to defend himself all the time (everyone has voiced their opinion by now) and he can work on those suggestions he's been promising. If they're any bit as good as his example it could become post of the year!

Haha! :D

Yes, good idea Tomer. :thup:

edgar555
09-01-2010, 13:02
Haha! :D

Yes, good idea Tomer. :thup:

I don't think I've got enough time to wait for these revelations. :D

anagain
09-01-2010, 13:05
Superb contribution. Thanks Mitja.


I'll admit I've left this thread alone recently, but I can't ignore this. Towards the start of this this thread a number of people left superb posts that might not have agreed with your original viewpoint, but were well written and analysed each side of the picture. You pretty much ignored each and every one of them.

Mitja's post is well written but because it almost completely agrees with your viewpoint it's a superb contribution. Are you still not interested in any other viewpoint?

I think Matjias Kek would be somewhat disturbed that his qualification for the World Cup was not down to his tactical knowledge but down to fluke, luck and a jolly good team spirit. I agree that there was some degree of team spirit to put it down to but Kek deserves as much praise as any manager for getting his team to play the way he wanted. They frustrated Russia to the result of making them play hard and having two men sent off.

Just a couple of reports from the web and Kek quotes.

FIFA.com (http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1136959.html#kek+hails+slovenias+historic+n ight)


"Today's victory is not down to any individual player, but the team as a whole. We prepared thoroughly for this match and analysed the Russian style of play beforehand. I'm so pleased that we accomplished our plan."

ESPN (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report?id=284577&cc=5739)


"My philosophy, which was accepted by players, is that I am not interested in individuals in my team and even less in the individuals of the opposite team. We showed that we can beat the best players in the world by an organised defence. For us the only important thing was a team and how we will win over Russia."

Slovenia pulled it off as did Greece at Euro 2004, through grit, determination and a strong tactical formation. They analysed Russia's abilities and countered them.


Bilic simply didn't pick the right team for the England matches and they lost. Many people may come out and make excuses about luck or the number of injuries wasn't on their side and Bilic failed to find the right team spirit, but the truth of the matter is his tactics were wrong in the two matches they needed a result in to qualify. They were unbeaten in the rest of their matches so there must have been something there.

National managers will always make excuses about luck and injuries if they fail an objective.


You are so willing to make your point, tak, that you are completely unblinkered in how you view things. If someone says it is all about team spirit you will glorify them and believe their points. If someone even dares to mention that tactics played a part, too, then you ignore it. You have to look at both sides of the picture.

I'll not go and say that morale, team spirit and organisation don't play a part in great victories, but to believe none of it comes down to a tactical approach is blinkered.

Almondo
09-01-2010, 13:05
@tak. tak I really think you need to just sit back and read through some of your posts in the thread. I understand that you're passionate about what you posted inyour OP but to say things like I quoted at the top of this post really shows your ignorance as to what a discussion really is. This thread which both myself and Tingting tried hard to pull back on track after you went into a war of words with wwfan is still headed off the rails really.

Once again tak I urge you to sit back and just read through some of your posts in this thread, but do it from a viewpoint of someone totally new to the forums who knows nothing about who any of us who have poasted in this thread are. I'm fairly sure that you will agree that some of your posts have been verging on the ridiculous and absurd.

You said in response to my previous post that you wanted constructive disagrement but when you get it you dismiss it as rubbish basically. If you don't then more people are going to agree with the Brian Clough quote below.


"We talk about it for twenty minutes and then we decide I was right."

Blaupunkt
09-01-2010, 13:25
i dont think this is going OT but still.

i have been thinking how tek suggests the manager should be a motivator, man manager and tactician(to some degree) friend to some/all the players etc i have actually come to the conclusion maybe wrongly that actually the manager will leave some of this to is assistant manager, for example when Teddy Sheringham played for Man UTD he and SAF were not what you would call "friends" but had a respect for each other and put their differences to one side for the sake of the team, i am sure i read about this.

i am putting forward the suggestion that actually the Assman would be more of the "motivator" and "friend" to the players where as the manager will usually keep a professional distances between himself and the players, after all if he was best friend to play X but the player was in a terrible run of form it would become increasingly difficult to drop "you friend" from the team. like wise if the player is getting on a bit and can no longer cut it at the top level and really should be dropped or sold and they were good friends off the pitch this could affect the managers judgement and actually hinder him and the team.

maybe the motivational side of things can be developed in the game but make it more to do with the assistant manager and the coaches?


the example given about Ronaldo to some degree may be true, maybe a play like him or Ryan Giggs for example might not need much in the way of a tactical plan to be out laid for them and be given their head, but they will still be told what is expected of them with in the teams over all tactical plan. no manager will give minimal tactical instruction to the whole team and just tell them to "get on with it".

i would argue that if you have a player or 2 who does not need much instruction and is allowed to do as he pleases the rest of the team will be playing to strong tactical plan, maybe more so than normal after all you will have to make up for this player(s) when he/they undoubtedly are not in position/tracking back etc when the other team win the ball and attack/counter attack them selves.

robbert_o154
09-01-2010, 13:31
I think that's a very good point, Blaupunkt, further borne out by Nani's recent comments in the press; you get the impression him and SAF hardy communicate on a day-to-basis. Definitely think you're on to something here.

edgar555
09-01-2010, 13:34
Blaupunkt, your point is even more supported by anyone who knows anything about the Clough/Taylor years. Clough would roast them and then Taylor would pick up the pieces and make them feel special again.

Matt123456
09-01-2010, 13:37
i dont think this is going OT but still.

i have been thinking how tek suggests the manager should be a motivator, man manager and tactician(to some degree) friend to some/all the players etc i have actually come to the conclusion maybe wrongly that actually the manager will leave some of this to is assistant manager, for example when Teddy Sheringham played for Man UTD he and SAF were not what you would call "friends" but had a respect for each other and put their differences to one side for the sake of the team, i am sure i read about this.

i am putting forward the suggestion that actually the Assman would be more of the "motivator" and "friend" to the players where as the manager will usually keep a professional distances between himself and the players, after all if he was best friend to play X but the player was in a terrible run of form it would become increasingly difficult to drop "you friend" from the team. like wise if the player is getting on a bit and can no longer cut it at the top level and really should be dropped or sold and they were good friends off the pitch this could affect the managers judgement and actually hinder him and the team.

maybe the motivational side of things can be developed in the game but make it more to do with the assistant manager and the coaches?


the example given about Ronaldo to some degree may be true, maybe a play like him or Ryan Giggs for example might not need much in the way of a tactical plan to be out laid for them and be given their head, but they will still be told what is expected of them with in the teams over all tactical plan. no manager will give minimal tactical instruction to the whole team and just tell them to "get on with it".

i would argue that if you have a player or 2 who does not need much instruction and is allowed to do as he pleases the rest of the team will be playing to strong tactical plan, maybe more so than normal after all you will have to make up for this player(s) when he/they undoubtedly are not in position/tracking back etc when the other team win the ball and attack/counter attack them selves.

Blaunpunkt that is a very good point, but I think this whole argument boils down to different types of management styles. Scolari for example wanted to be players friends, and that worked with Brazil, but with the strong personalities at Chelsea it failed miserably. SAF has an almost dictatorial style, which has been very effective it managing the big names in his team. I may be wrong here, but I think he probably has a sort of "good cop-bad cop" style of management with the assistant being the good cop. What Tak is trying to say is that the hands on with the players style of management isn't as adeptly simulated as the tactical genius style of management. If this is what he is trying to say (please confirm this Tak), then ignore all the incoherent, rambling long-windedness of his previous posts and focus on that as his point.

Mitja
09-01-2010, 13:39
@anagain

I would never suggest that tactics are not important part of football or that any manager will just pick the team without a serious match preparation. but man managment and motivational area of FM is vastly inferior compared to tactical. not just when it comes to tools available to interact with players but also on day to day basis. tactically you can play the game in great detail (maybe even too much) but there's imho no real depth in squad managment and motivation area. once you get grips with tactics and build the squad with right players, which is really not hard, the game doesn't offer much more real complexity. that's where I agree with tak. but unlike him I think tactics are equally important..

as for you coments about Kek and Bilic, I'm not denying or questioning their tactical knowledge. I expect from national team manager to be tactically enough capable to lead the team on top level. you're wrong about why Croatia lost to England. we just didn't have any chance nor confidence against far better quality team whith new manager and new philosophy, which was totally fired up against a team which put England out of EC. after England scored first goal Croatia just vanished. nothing to do with tactics.

your Kek coments and his quotes prove what I said. Slovenia couldn't beat far better quality opponents with far better manager only with tactics. Slovenia won because of the advantage the players had in their heads and hearts/balls. maybe Russian players feared too much of failure, maybe they underestimated Slovenian team, which I doubt. without the shadow of the doubt Kek did tactically prepare the team to every possible detail, just like Bilic did his team before the match against England.

anagain
09-01-2010, 14:00
@anagain

I would never suggest that tactics are not important part of football or that any manager will just pick the team without a serious match preparation. but man managment and motivational area of FM is vastly inferior compared to tactical. not just when it comes to tools available to interact with players but also on day to day basis. tactically you can play the game in great detail (maybe even too much) but there's imho no real depth in squad managment and motivation area. once you get grips with tactics and build the squad with right players, which is really not hard, the game doesn't offer much more real complexity. that's where I agree with tak. but unlike him I think tactics are equally important..

as for you coments about Kek and Bilic, I'm not denying or questioning their tactical knowledge. I expect from national team manager to be tactically enough capable to lead the team on top level. you're wrong about why Croatia lost to England. we just didn't have any chance nor confidence against far better quality team whith new manager and new philosophy, which was totally fired up against a team which put England out of EC. after England scored first goal Croatia just vanished. nothing to do with tactics.

your Kek coments and his quotes prove what I said. Slovenia couldn't beat far better quality opponents with far better manager only with tactics. Slovenia won because of the advantage the players had in their heads and hearts/balls. maybe Russian players feared too much of failure, maybe they underestimated Slovenian team, which I doubt. without the shadow of the doubt Kek did tactically prepare the team to every possible detail, just like Bilic did his team before the match against England.

I do agree with your post, Mitja. You made some very good and well researched comments. I agree that big win football games come down to motivation as well as tactics and that the team best prepared can win out even if they are tactically not as competent.

My post was mainly directed at tak. I feel he needs to look at the wider picture so I made some comments to compliment your thoughts.

Sorry if I made it appear I was washing your thoughts out of the water.

Tak's blatant glorying of your post because it echoed his original post is what he has been doing since day one of this thread. That is in contrast to him pretty much ignoring posts that disagree with him. His comment in reply to your post made me chuckle. Compare it to how he replied to a post by Crouchaldinho that he didn't agree with:


I am sorry crouchaldinho but since you hurt my feelings by shouting and swearing at another thread I don't want to speak to you. Besides you think that what we have is excellent so you are clearly not the person to strive for improvement let alone to think radically. Thanks for the input anyway...

I'd love to see a boost to the motivation branch of FM in the future but I'd also like tak to respect a post that talks of tactics. He needs to look at the wider picture. So far he has not been willing to.

djwilko6
09-01-2010, 15:13
I do agree with your post, Mitja. You made some very good and well researched comments. I agree that big win football games come down to motivation as well as tactics and that the team best prepared can win out even if they are tactically not as competent.

I said this on page 1 didnt I?

RBKalle
09-01-2010, 15:43
We can't really use examples of [b]international football[/i] to prove the "motivation over tactics" point.

Upsets and surprises happen, but are usually due to ONE SINGLE MATCH, or eventually to a couple of good-lucky performances, so motivation can be a huge factor.

But let's not forget international managers work with the players just for a few days every year, and some weeks before World Cup/Euro Championships.
Obviously they can't work on the tactical side in the same way a club manager does, so motivation plays a bigger role.

And a national side is not a club, where you can buy and sell players according to a plan. You just must work with what you have... Be it good, average or poor.


About the old story of Greece at Euro2004, or about the examples brought up by Mitja: had it been a 30-games competition instead of a short tournament/group, Greece, Slovenia, Bosnia and Croatia would have needed much much more than tons of motivation and a smart tactical plan.

Be¢kham
09-01-2010, 15:48
Haven't read through the whole threat but completely agree that tactics are far too complicated. Yeah it's nice to be able to choose player roles now but that's useless if you can't master the tactical side of the game.

I'd prefer if you could just choose a formation and player's perform more relative to factors such as form, morale, their playing statistics, team-mates and other external sources rather than a tactic.

crouchaldinho
09-01-2010, 16:49
I said this on page 1 didnt I?

Pretty sure that we all did. :rolleyes:

tak
09-01-2010, 17:00
Many years ago a man had an idea: "I am going to create a football game that you will play as the manager. You will input your instructions and you are going to see your team playing". Do you want to hear the reaction?

"This is ridiculous, it can't happen. Imagine all the gazillions of combinations happening in the pitch. As for the possible instructions? They are quatrillions."

Yet, today we have a brilliant product in our hands. Maybe whoever came up with the idea did not have a clue about football matches. Maybe he could not propose a single thing about how it could be done.

The essence of this thread, which is "starting with a blank page and building a realistic environment in which the manager operates", is only a matter of resources and will and ingenuity.

Let us discuss my argument that tactics are a relatively small part football management, particularly at higer levels (and special competitions as RBKalle argued), at another thread. I will open one immediately. Let us do the same with Greece.

With my Ronaldinho example, I showed a string of events that are possible in real life? Is there someone who disagrees with that? Of course it is a very particular string of events that could not be repeated. But, every goal you score in FM is a particular string of events that can not be repeated.

How can an engine created that, like the match engine (ME), simulates such events?

Let us start with this question (the "leap of faith" I was talking about)

tingting
09-01-2010, 18:45
Let us discuss my argument that tactics are a relatively small part football management, particularly at higer levels (and special competitions as RBKalle argued), at another thread. I will open one immediately. Let us do the same with Greece.

Tak i am sorry to say but i disagree here. Tactics are an important part in whatever level of football be it in an international squad or in the lowest level of football. If you want to say tactics are not the only thing a manager at a high level club does, then yes...i think many of us will agree that along with tactics there are other things which influences a team's performance and we can have a discussion regarding ways to increase the motivational side or interaction side of a manager. But if you continue to say they play only a minor part and motivation is more important, then not many will agree.

Even if it is true that managers at big clubs do not give much tactical information for their players, then that is the case when the big team is taking on a relatively inferior team...but in matches between big clubs it is tactics that win while motivation takes a backseat (of course that is a different matter in derbies but even in such cases motivation is not the most important thing)



With my Ronaldinho example, I showed a string of events that are possible in real life? Is there someone who disagrees with that? Of course it is a very particular string of events that could not be repeated. But, every goal you score in FM is a particular string of events that can not be repeated.

How can an engine created that, like the match engine (ME), simulates such events?

Let us start with this question (the "leap of faith" I was talking about)

What exactly should be done to reflect real life events in the game? You want players to go on a drinking binge? You want the game to reflect some players taking cocaine...well apart from the fact that such things rarely affect the performance of a club, there is a legal angle too. Let us take your example and say that the game ronaldinho has a habit of drinking heavily or taking cocaine, but this will leave SI liable to get sued by the real ronaldinho. You want players to miss training?? but no one does that unless they are unhappy at the club and sometimes this situation is already reflected in the game depending on the players' professional ratings.

tak
09-01-2010, 18:57
Hi tingting

I know many people in this forum do not agree that tactics is a relatively small piece of a manager's job. I still thing though, tactics have some importance. Anyway, I opened a new thread about that and it will be very interesting I think.

About your question, no I don't want drinking problems and drug abuse in the game. I just gave an example of a complete realistic string of events that produced a trophy.

I also do not have a clue how it could be done but I know that a realistic environment is needed if we want to enjoy a better simulation. Like I said, the creators of this genre did not know how they could create a football match simulation, when they first got the idea. But they did it.

I do not have a strong creative side, but if I were to run a project like that I would have long discussions with talented (probably young) developers (if that's the right word) to see how we could create this realistic environment

More importantly, I would challenge them to think of that not as an add-on (like press conferences or tutoring) but as a completely new thing.

Do you have any ideas?

Best regards

tak.

Tomer
09-01-2010, 19:41
Well, that's quite an anticlimax :D

Blaupunkt
09-01-2010, 19:45
Hi tingting

I know many people in this forum do not agree that tactics is a relatively small piece of a manager's job. I still thing though, tactics have some importance. Anyway, I opened a new thread about that and it will be very interesting I think.

About your question, no I don't want drinking problems and drug abuse in the game. I just gave an example of a complete realistic string of events that produced a trophy.

No it wasn't, seriously!


I also do not have a clue how it could be done but I know that a realistic environment is needed if we want to enjoy a better simulation. Like I said, the creators of this genre did not know how they could create a football match simulation, when they first got the idea. But they did it.

??? are suggesting when FM was first created back in the day the very first champ man that was released they did not know what they were trying to achieve. that they some how stumbled up on making a football management game.


I do not have a strong creative side, but if I were to run a project like that I would have long discussions with talented (probably young) developers (if that's the right word) to see how we could create this realistic environment

firstly, i think we have all come to realise that you have no "real" ideas, just lots of assumptions that you assume to be true.

secondly, do you not think the SI team as a whole do not already have long discussions and are already a very talented bunch of programmers and developers ? not sure about the young bit though ;)



More importantly, I would challenge them to think of that not as an add-on (like press conferences or tutoring) but as a completely new thing.

again i have to ask how you think press conferences or tutoring etc were added to the game, are you implying that they were an after thought that were just tacked onto the game to give the user something else to do, that these features were not discussed or thought through about how they would work with the game and also researched ?



Do you have any ideas?



what ideas are you asking for, ideas about how the current in game features can be improved up on or ideas about how we can have scenarios similar to your "story" implemented into the game obviously with out the binge drinking, drug abuse and use of prostitutes etc ?

tak
09-01-2010, 20:01
No it wasn't, seriously!

Why not?



??? are suggesting when FM was first created back in the day the very first champ man that was released they did not know what they were trying to achieve. that they some how stumbled up on making a football management game.

No. I am saying that when new first idea of a football simulation appeared, they did not know how to do it. The key word is how.


firstly, i think we have all come to realise that you have no "real" ideas, just lots of assumptions that you assume to be true.

secondly, do you not think the SI team as a whole do not already have long discussions and are already a very talented bunch of programmers and developers ? not sure about the young bit though ;)

No. I don't understand where that came from. As a matter of fact, I trust SI to have the resources to complete such a project, should they choose to start it.



again i have to ask how you think press conferences or tutoring etc were added to the game, are you implying that they were an after thought that were just tacked onto the game to give the user something else to do, that these features were not discussed or thought through about how they would work with the game and also researched ?

I think those features were discussed and thought through before they were added to the game.


what ideas are you asking for, ideas about how the current in game features can be improved up on or ideas about how we can have scenarios similar to your "story" implemented into the game obviously with out the binge drinking, drug abuse and use of prostitutes etc ?


Ideas about creating a realistic environment.

tingting
09-01-2010, 20:29
Ideas about creating a realistic environment.

By realistic environment if you mean players getting unhappy if they are played out of position, removing the ability to changing the style of play 10 times in a single game, getting players to train in a position specific way (ie central defenders not training on finishing when the main aim of putting them in shooting training is to improve their composure) or complaining when they do not start a set number of games depending on their squad status then yes...i will agree with you and hope that SI work on it. But if the realistic environment means players unzipping in clubs, getting prostitutes, getting married, having kids etc etc...that is no way related to or has an affect on football..it is just spicy news for a tabloid.

Blaupunkt
09-01-2010, 20:44
Why not?

because what you wrote is total fantasy with a few real life elements thrown in.

using some of the scenario's you had in your story...

Scenario A, you have a players who is home sick or cannot settle for some reason.

Solution A, you send him home on a few weeks leave, try and bring in a someone who can speak the same language - both of these you can do now, yes this can be worked on and give you more choices on how you can deal with this problem and also more feed back as to why the player is home sick or cannot settle.

Scenario B you have a player who is court using by a random drugs test.

Solution B you send him to rehab and hope he can over come his addiction, out come, you lose him for 6, 9, 12 months of the game, he gets a life time ban, he comes back to the game clean OR he cannot over come his drugs habit and is forced to retire.

Scenario C you have a player who is an alcoholic.

Solution C see solution B for your answer.

Scenario D you go to sign a player whos sponsors say he must play every game or words to that effect.

Solution D you dont sign him, no manager in his right mind will sign him with such a clause in his contract, out come with the player has no future in the game or the sponsors have to drop their ridicules demands.

Scenario E you have 2 players who do not get on for whatever reason.

Solution E if they cannot work out the problems and put personal agenda to one side then you will have to evaluate which of the 2 players is more valuable to your team and sell the other, again this is also in the game admittedly you have no input or any idea why they might not be getting on for no reason but this can be worked on to find out why the 2 players do not get on and maybe some comments could be used to the players to try and tell them to work out or else.

thats it for now, but IMHO only A and E would be worth expanding in the game to some degree. Scenarios B, C, and D, even if they could be implemented would be totally pointless and not make the game fun or add anything to it.

could you imagine the amounts of complaining on these forums by people who have just spent millions on a star player only for a couple of weeks later he has to be sent to rehab but 9 months later that fails and he has to quite the game, or you sign or have a good/great player in your squad but he is in a poor run of form so you drop him for a couple of weeks only to find the sponsors of said player use the clause in his contract and take him out of your club and sell him to your closest rivals!

jcafcwbb
09-01-2010, 20:50
Can we please just get some post match press conferences that actually bear in mind the accounts on the pitch. If one of my players get a red card or we concede a penalty ask me about it and not how winning a third game in a row will affect my players' confidence.

tak
09-01-2010, 20:52
Blaupunkt, I appreciate the time it took to write this analysis, but it is not at all what I meant by this example.

djwilko6
09-01-2010, 20:55
Blaupunkt, I appreciate the time it took to write this analysis, but it is not at all what I meant by this example.

Then explain what you did mean insted of letting people assume what you ment.

Blaupunkt
09-01-2010, 20:58
well until you post something that is clear with good examples of what you mean, the types of things you wish to see added into FM i do not see much point in continuing this thread if i am honest.

tak
09-01-2010, 21:16
Like I have said a few times, it was an example on how a perfectly realistic string of event can create a football triumph. I also said that I didn't write it to suggest that those kind of events should be included in the game.

Looking at your analysis, Blaupunkt, I realised that people are used to "man-management" add-ons to work in a very question and answer way: You get a situation and you do something. For example: Your player can't settle, you bring him a compatriot. A player has an average of 5, you say dissapointed.

If a realistic environment is to ever exist in FM, it has to be drawn from scratch, not just add more questions and more answers.

I trust SI, like I said, because they have created an engine that produces unique strings of events every time. It is called the match engine.

Maybe a similar engine could be built, to include many different factors that affect a player's psyche and his performance in training and on the pitch.

Blaupunkt
09-01-2010, 21:32
so you are asking for a Sims 3 like game to be added to FM ?

tak
09-01-2010, 21:40
No, I am not.

edgar555
09-01-2010, 22:08
It sounds like you really are.

tak
09-01-2010, 22:14
Do you want to think about it for a while and come back tomorrow?

anagain
09-01-2010, 23:24
Ideas about creating a realistic environment.

Okay, I'll bite.

The tactical modules of FM need continual enhancements, so keep that up. I think many would agree that that is the chief part of the game, so SI are naturally going to devote their time to making sure it is as good as it can be.

In conjunction to that I would be quite happy with a few basic changes:

1. Training. This could be massively enhanced to allow you to really influence a player's improvement. You could even add in ways to train players in their mental attitude to the game.

2. Player meetings. We now have staff meetings and I think it could be a natural continuation to have player meetings. There is a method by which you can call a player meeting to discuss bad form but it's not easy to get to and nor are you directed to do so. I often feel a bit overwhelmed at trying to reverse a bad run and would like more ways to do so than the encouraging press conference.

3. Continuation of improvement to press conferences and team talks. This can always be worked on and I am sure will continue to be done so.


I don't think a new mechanic is needed. I think what is there is a good start and can be worked on to really add to FM. Like tak, I trust SI to be able to improve where improvement is necessary.


Is that what you mean, tak? If you ignore this because it doesn't conform to your wants and no future discussion is warranted then at least have some good reasons why. You may think that FM needs more than improvement to existing mechanics but you really need to have some ideas if you think that. At least have some ideas as to why what might be suggested doesn't work.

rocky0
10-01-2010, 00:29
Im just going to throw a simple observation into this discussion. I can understand and appreciate there being outside factors that can affect the way a player preforms on the pitch. Being able to have this worked into the game in someway, if I am understanding Tak's idea, would also be a good thing. A big hurdle to this though is something that SI cannot overcome.

If you look at real life examples, many times the outside element that causes a player to nt preform is alcohol/drugs/crime, at least these are the issues that I can think of within the last few months. SI could not use these types of instances because it would setup a potential legal liabilty. This type of discussion usually comes up when a footballer makes headlines for the wrong reason. Imagine what would happen if in the game generates a player as having a drug problem. That same player in real life would almost certainly have an issue with this.

You have to take into account what types of issues would SI actually be able to use in affecting players and then decide if it would be worth putting into the game. I think this is one aspect of real life that does not need to be added into the game. There are enough factors in the game already that make it a challenge. If the already existing modules of the game, training, scouting, interaction between players/mangers, etc., could be developed more, this would bring more to the game without having to add in more and more features.

I agree with most in this thread that it's the tactics that affect a players performance more than anything else. If you have your formation setup that your slowest striker out on the wing and expect him to run at the defense and break them down on the wing, doesnt that affect the player in a negative way??

I like the idea of outside factors affecting a player's play but I dont agree that they would affect a player more than the way he is used by his manager.

As always, just my two cents, take it for what it's worth

tak
10-01-2010, 00:49
By realistic environment if you mean players getting unhappy if they are played out of position, removing the ability to changing the style of play 10 times in a single game, getting players to train in a position specific way (ie central defenders not training on finishing when the main aim of putting them in shooting training is to improve their composure) or complaining when they do not start a set number of games depending on their squad status then yes...i will agree with you and hope that SI work on it. But if the realistic environment means players unzipping in clubs, getting prostitutes, getting married, having kids etc etc...that is no way related to or has an affect on football..it is just spicy news for a tabloid.

I agree that all those things could be introduced. And indeed we can do without tabloid news although, in real life, they have an effect on certain players.


Okay, I'll bite.

The tactical modules of FM need continual enhancements, so keep that up. I think many would agree that that is the chief part of the game, so SI are naturally going to devote their time to making sure it is as good as it can be.

In conjunction to that I would be quite happy with a few basic changes:

1. Training. This could be massively enhanced to allow you to really influence a player's improvement. You could even add in ways to train players in their mental attitude to the game.

2. Player meetings. We now have staff meetings and I think it could be a natural continuation to have player meetings. There is a method by which you can call a player meeting to discuss bad form but it's not easy to get to and nor are you directed to do so. I often feel a bit overwhelmed at trying to reverse a bad run and would like more ways to do so than the encouraging press conference.

3. Continuation of improvement to press conferences and team talks. This can always be worked on and I am sure will continue to be done so.


I don't think a new mechanic is needed. I think what is there is a good start and can be worked on to really add to FM. Like tak, I trust SI to be able to improve where improvement is necessary.


Is that what you mean, tak? If you ignore this because it doesn't conform to your wants and no future discussion is warranted then at least have some good reasons why. You may think that FM needs more than improvement to existing mechanics but you really need to have some ideas if you think that. At least have some ideas as to why what might be suggested doesn't work.

I apologised for ignoring some posts because they are simply too many, so I am sorry if one of them was yours.

The improvements you ask for are reasonable, I am just trying to see if there is an opportunity for something revolutionary. It is hard for me to explain and consequently hard for you to understand. Add to that the kids screaming paragraphs from the Pyramid, and it makes sense we are moving slowly. However, progress is being made.

There is a great book written by an old wise man (not wwfan) about the campaign of Napoleon to Moscow and his ugly retreat. In this he takes some time to explain how what we frequently perceive as the result of the genius of a general (winning a battle) is actually the result of a combination of many events. A lot of times the celebrated general took decisions that were dictated by reality like in a "forced mat" sequence. He just made the only move available...

In football we have the same. Managers' actions are not free like in FM, they are often dictated. Moreover, there are sequences of events that can make them legends or ridicule them, whatever there input is.

However, it is customary, especially in this forum, to discuss about tactical decisions. Everyone has a hobby of course, others waffle about cars others about cinema. Hobbies have terminology, books, specialisation and, more importantly, narrowness of view.

But I am drifting away again.

Yes, my friend anagain, your proposals are to the point. It is as impossible to develop a player physically as it is mentaly. (Que here the usual answers that both are in the game but I haven't discovered them) The detail that exists in creating all those wonderful pyramids by working 750 sliders, should exist in training. There is absolutely no question about that.

Many people wrote that in here and I am glad I have a chance to agree. All the tactical work of a manager happens in training. However, in FM, all the tactical work of a manager happens after the press conference. What is he doing during the week? Is he in Brazil with Ronaldinho?

The reason that training is not developed is, in my humble opinion, that it is not a topic of discussion amongst the main market of FM, pyramid lovers. It is not exiting. The young pyramids want to construct formations and tactics, not train their players. And that's fair enough.

My concern was not training, although it is a shambles now. It was to simulate a dynamic environment where players and staff feel like real people, interact, have mixed feelings about things (lol), and where many factors are combined, like in the match engine.

I still haven't quite formed it. Like I said though, I would nail it with the right people on board.

Cougar2010
10-01-2010, 01:10
I've tried to stay aware from this thread but I feel I need to comment.

I can honestly say I'm lost when it comes to tak, I don't know if he is being serious, sarcastic or just looking for conversation most of the time.







Yes, my friend anagain, your proposals are to the point. It is as impossible to develop a player physically as it is mentaly. (Que here the usual answers that both are in the game but I haven't discovered them) The detail that exists in creating all those wonderful pyramids by working 750 sliders, should exist in training. There is absolutely no question about that.




Are you seriously suggesting players don't improve within FM?



Moving away from that I sort of understand that you are looking for an improvement/expansion to the off-field activities to more reflect real life. Further for all the modules within FM to interact more with each other.

Personally I would be open to trying more/improved off-field activities but has it occurred to you that some/many? FM players only want to play the matches and race through seasons.

Setting up a training scheme, negotiating a transfer or even watching highlights are far too time consuming for some users as shown by this forum. These people want a faster, simpler game and SI need to consider these users when programming. By adding more depth through non-football events you further alienate them.

tak
10-01-2010, 01:15
Cougar, you are right. What I meant is that you can develop a player physically with a thing called training which is a few sliders and mentaly by assigning tutors. It happens, they develop, but what is your input in that?

I agree also that market forces dictate that the game is as it is, and I said it a couple of times.

anagain
10-01-2010, 01:26
The improvements you ask for are reasonable, I am just trying to see if there is an opportunity for something revolutionary. It is hard for me to explain and consequently hard for you to understand. Add to that the kids screaming paragraphs from the Pyramid, and it makes sense we are moving slowly. However, progress is being made.


Sorry to pick out just one paragraph but your comments are what FM is. It's not hard for me to understand what you mean. I know what you mean. You want that something revolutionary. But, bear in mind the following.

When FM first hit computers it was revolutionary.

When FM first included training modules it was revolutionary.

When FM first moved away from commentary only to 2D pitch displays it was revolutionary.

When FM first introduced press conferences it was revolutionary.

When FM first introduced 3D matches it was revolutionary.

I could go on.

The point is that FM continues to up the bar and football management sims continue to improve. CM improving steadily is a good thing for FM as they need to add new and exciting ideas, hence the 3D match engine, I suspect. The problem is that new and revolutionary ideas can not be just plonked into the game and everything works fine. They have to start somewhere. Press conferences were basic when they arrived. The 3D match display was basic. The tactical engine has had years to develop.

If SI were to come along with a revolutionary new social element to FM we may call it revolutionary and awe-inspiring but what would it do to the game?

These things need to come in stages, so get your head down Tonto and think of ways that what we have can be bettered upon. That is the best for FM. A steady improvement over the years.

Cougar2010
10-01-2010, 01:26
Cougar, you are right. What I meant is that you can develop a player physically with a thing called training which is a few sliders and mentaly by assigning tutors. It happens, they develop, but what is your input in that?

I see what you are saying with training.

You set the scheme then leave it as the player develops rarely making changes. A lot never touch training at all.

On top of that we can retrain positions and encourage players to develop PPMs which is hardly "in depth"



The problem is I can't see how this can be successfully improved.

CM have gone with training sessions that you can watch - Other than being a gimmick how many users really watch them more than an odd time. I would estimate extremely low as it would fast become boring.

I few versions ago we had an open week schedule and a list of possible "training routines" which could be entered into the weekly plan. It wasn't popular amongst users so it was simplified to what we have now.

tak
10-01-2010, 01:29
Sorry to pick out just one paragraph but your comments are what FM is. It's not hard for me to understand what you mean. I know what you mean. You want that something revolutionary. But, bear in mind the following.

When FM first hit computers it was revolutionary.

When FM first included training modules it was revolutionary.

When FM first moved away from commentary only to 2D pitch displays it was revolutionary.

When FM first introduced press conferences it was revolutionary.

When FM first introduced 3D matches it was revolutionary.

I could go on.

The point is that FM continues to up the bar and football management sims continue to improve. CM improving steadily is a good thing for FM as they need to add new and exciting ideas, hence the 3D match engine, I suspect. The problem is that new and revolutionary ideas can not be just plonked into the game and everything works fine. They have to start somewhere. Press conferences were basic when they arrived. The 3D match display was basic. The tactical engine has had years to develop.

If SI were to come along with a revolutionary new social element to FM we may call it revolutionary and awe-inspiring but what would it do to the game?

These things need to come in stages, so get your head down Tonto and think of ways that what we have can be bettered upon. That is the best for FM. A steady improvement over the years.

Yes progress often comes in small steps. But it also comes in leaps. I am trying to explore if it is the time for a leap?

cream147
10-01-2010, 01:32
Personally, I think this game would get a big lift from a little bit of work on press conferences. Their should be some joking answers to certain questions, and indeed some joking questions. It would make you as the manager seem like you have more personality.

Another nice option would be to call a press conferences about certain events, for example, the signing of a player, or the sacking of a manager in the same league as you. You should also be able to call press conferences about typical moans such as heavy Christmas schedules.

Just these little changes to the press conference system would for me, go a long way to making you feel more like a manager. It wouldn't be enough, but it would be a good start.

anagain
10-01-2010, 01:36
Cougar, you are right. What I meant is that you can develop a player physically with a thing called training which is a few sliders and mentaly by assigning tutors. It happens, they develop, but what is your input in that?


Your input is moving those silders and/or setting new positions and new preferred moves. You judge what training a player undertakes, not a coach (unless of course you set the game to have coaches assign training). You can make any training schedule you so wish to do as well.

I do believe training can be improved upon, so input ideas and we'll see what SI can do.


Setting up a training scheme, negotiating a transfer or even watching highlights are far too time consuming for some users as shown by this forum. These people want a faster, simpler game and SI need to consider these users when programming. By adding more depth through non-football events you further alienate them.

I don't think that is the way to look at FM, Cougar. I don't think SI ever have, or ever should, refrain from a game addition on the basis that not everyone wants detail. I fully believe that SI strive to make the best and most detailed football management sim on the market. They also always strive to add alternative ways to do things so that some are not alienated, but there are other games on the market that cater to other types of player.

As examples, we now have a 3D match engine but commentary only and 2D are there for those who want it and we have press conferences but any player can let their assistant take charge of those. The difference is that I am pretty sure it has been stated that the match engine is written around the 3D match display so you'll get best benefit from using that and we all know the troubles that spring up when assistants do press conferences.

When it comes to the adding of non-football events, well that may be a different matter. I still don't think that SI need concern themselves with alienating some percentage of the player-base.

anagain
10-01-2010, 01:40
Yes progress often comes in small steps. But it also comes in leaps. I am trying to explore if it is the time for a leap?

I don't think that progress in FM can come in a huge leap. Adding too big an idea and too convoluted a code to FM in one go could make the game so unsteady that it would need much longer than a year to develop. When the game comes out in yearly editions then they are almost forced to take a steady approach.

As well as looking at the game from more than the one angle I have thought you do, you need to understand the logistics at play.

It's great to want more from FM, but be realistic.

muncherdave
10-01-2010, 10:49
This thread is the biggest waste of time since, well this thread. Whenever I think of anything being a waste of time on these forums (which isn't that often) I shall think of this thread. Four pages later where are you? Asking people about ideas for the leap of faith you suggested in the first place. If you have nothing relevant to say then say nothing at all. All I have seen here is pointless bickering that has led to nothing.

The thread title is so misleading it beggars belief. It sounds like you have something to say that could change the very nature of the game we all love and play when it does nothing of the sort. We all want to improve the overall FM experience but unless there is an actual specific idea about where it goes from here I really see no point in continuing this thread. There is brainstorming and then there is production blocking.

robbert_o154
10-01-2010, 12:03
I agree, muncherdave. With tak (in post #304) admitting he doesn't have a specific plan and the likes of wwfan no longer around to help him focus and shape his ideas, this thread has nowhere left to go but round and round in circles. Which is a pity, for there was a moment, towards the end of page 2, where we were really starting to get somewhere.

Squirmy Rooter 2.0
10-01-2010, 12:24
Setting up a training scheme, negotiating a transfer or even watching highlights are far too time consuming for some users as shown by this forum. These people want a faster, simpler game and SI need to consider these users when programming. By adding more depth through non-football events you further alienate them.


Cougar, you are right. What I meant is that you can develop a player physically with a thing called training which is a few sliders and mentaly by assigning tutors. It happens, they develop, but what is your input in that?


With regards to depth and FM being too time consuming...

The problem I have with the game is that a lot of this depth is too "mechanical", too explicit, and the user has too much what I would call "handle turning" to do - too much having to delve into menus, sub-menus, tabs, drop-down boxes, and having to tick all the right boxes etc. (Plus actually having to remember to do so).

You mentioned assigning tutors, so to take that as an example... Now SI and those of you here who have played/coached at a certain level will know better than me, but is this really something that should be so explicit and mechanical? Does the manager really take a player to one-side and say, right you specifically help this particular youngster to develop but no other players are to be influenced by you unless I explicitly say so, and vice-versa?

In my opinion, this is something that should be almost totally implicit. I should imagine that any young midfielder coming through the ranks at Old Trafford is going to view Paul Scholes as being a role-model, watch him in training, and benefit from his years of experience playing in the centre of United's midfield. But even then it wouldn't be such a straightforward one-to-one / one-to-many relationship. Younger and newer players would probably take many varied influences from other more established/experiences/revered players at the club.

If this sort of implicit "tutoring" system was in-place, the actual depth of gameplay would still be there - but it would be as a natural consequence of the players that you decide to bring-in/maintain in your squad, rather than just another one of these cases where you have to remember to go through these menus and go "right, assign you to you.... and you to you..... and um, let's have you tutor this lad here....". Instead you'd have to think more carefully about the balance and harmony of your squad and maintaining a good mixture of youth and experience, and continuity from season to season. I'd argue that this would actually provide more depth to the game, but make it less time-consuming and distracting for those that, as you say, want a simpler and faster game.

I am one of those people who consider FM to be too time-consuming. I still maintain an interest and a passion for the game, I had bought every version since CM2 and the whole series was my favorite (well, maybe second favorite ;)) form of recreation for more than a decade. But after playing the demos, I have not bought the last few annual releases as it is quite simply no-longer a game that I can possibly play during my lunch-hour.

The first "revolution" or "leap of faith" I'd like to see is therefore not in any new features or added compications, but to the whole interface. To make it simpler, quicker and easier to use (note: I don't mean make the game easier to win - I just mean easier to use - there is a big difference!).

So many features and details have been added over the years, but the user-interface hasn't - in my opinion - developed enough to deal with it properly. Necessary information and required user-interaction have often ended up just being tucked away in places that you might not intuitively think of looking. Plus there are too many areas where your input and the feedback from the game is vague / ambiguous / downright-misleading that as well as playing the game it is also often necessary to read these forums just to find out what some options / sentences actually mean.

Crouchaldihno accuses the original poster of being "ignorant" of what features already exist in the game. If I worked at SI, I'd spend a moments though questioning why users might be unaware of such things...




When FM first hit computers it was revolutionary.
When FM first moved away from commentary only to 2D pitch displays it was revolutionary.


From your list, I personally would only describe those two that I've included above as being "revolutionary". Maybe I'm harder to please... :)

Scoham
10-01-2010, 13:42
I have nothing against the tactics creator...in fact i believe it is the best feature added in recent years. However tactics creator and tactics system are two different things. Tactics system is the same it is just explained in understanding terms to us human managers through tactics creator.

How could it be changed for the better though? It's a game, it's got to have numbers behind the scenes somewhere. Whether they are represented as sliders, drop down boxes or something else doesn't actually make a difference.

I suppose if the sliders were hidden completely, the tactics creator would look like a completely new system, though behind the scenes it actually wouldn't be.

tak
10-01-2010, 16:28
This thread is the biggest waste of time since, well this thread. Whenever I think of anything being a waste of time on these forums (which isn't that often) I shall think of this thread. Four pages later where are you? Asking people about ideas for the leap of faith you suggested in the first place. If you have nothing relevant to say then say nothing at all. All I have seen here is pointless bickering that has led to nothing.

The thread title is so misleading it beggars belief. It sounds like you have something to say that could change the very nature of the game we all love and play when it does nothing of the sort. We all want to improve the overall FM experience but unless there is an actual specific idea about where it goes from here I really see no point in continuing this thread. There is brainstorming and then there is production blocking.

I am sorry that your valuable time was wasted. This is not a project I am running. If it were, you can be absolutely sure I would have formed the right team to push forward.

In this forum it will move slower but stil to the right direction.

tak
10-01-2010, 16:31
I agree, muncherdave. With tak (in post #304) admitting he doesn't have a specific plan and the likes of wwfan no longer around to help him focus and shape his ideas, this thread has nowhere left to go but round and round in circles. Which is a pity, for there was a moment, towards the end of page 2, where we were really starting to get somewhere.

I think the wise teacher was a hindrance rather than help. I gave him a little ego massage, didn't harm anyone.

Tomer
10-01-2010, 16:37
I think the wise teacher was a hindrance rather than help. I gave him a little ego massage, didn't harm anyone.

If anyone has been a hindrance....

tak
10-01-2010, 16:40
With regards to depth and FM being too time consuming...

The problem I have with the game is that a lot of this depth is too "mechanical", too explicit, and the user has too much what I would call "handle turning" to do - too much having to delve into menus, sub-menus, tabs, drop-down boxes, and having to tick all the right boxes etc. (Plus actually having to remember to do so).

You mentioned assigning tutors, so to take that as an example... Now SI and those of you here who have played/coached at a certain level will know better than me, but is this really something that should be so explicit and mechanical? Does the manager really take a player to one-side and say, right you specifically help this particular youngster to develop but no other players are to be influenced by you unless I explicitly say so, and vice-versa?

In my opinion, this is something that should be almost totally implicit. I should imagine that any young midfielder coming through the ranks at Old Trafford is going to view Paul Scholes as being a role-model, watch him in training, and benefit from his years of experience playing in the centre of United's midfield. But even then it wouldn't be such a straightforward one-to-one / one-to-many relationship. Younger and newer players would probably take many varied influences from other more established/experiences/revered players at the club.

If this sort of implicit "tutoring" system was in-place, the actual depth of gameplay would still be there - but it would be as a natural consequence of the players that you decide to bring-in/maintain in your squad, rather than just another one of these cases where you have to remember to go through these menus and go "right, assign you to you.... and you to you..... and um, let's have you tutor this lad here....". Instead you'd have to think more carefully about the balance and harmony of your squad and maintaining a good mixture of youth and experience, and continuity from season to season. I'd argue that this would actually provide more depth to the game, but make it less time-consuming and distracting for those that, as you say, want a simpler and faster game.

I am one of those people who consider FM to be too time-consuming. I still maintain an interest and a passion for the game, I had bought every version since CM2 and the whole series was my favorite (well, maybe second favorite ;)) form of recreation for more than a decade. But after playing the demos, I have not bought the last few annual releases as it is quite simply no-longer a game that I can possibly play during my lunch-hour.

The first "revolution" or "leap of faith" I'd like to see is therefore not in any new features or added compications, but to the whole interface. To make it simpler, quicker and easier to use (note: I don't mean make the game easier to win - I just mean easier to use - there is a big difference!).

So many features and details have been added over the years, but the user-interface hasn't - in my opinion - developed enough to deal with it properly. Necessary information and required user-interaction have often ended up just being tucked away in places that you might not intuitively think of looking. Plus there are too many areas where your input and the feedback from the game is vague / ambiguous / downright-misleading that as well as playing the game it is also often necessary to read these forums just to find out what some options / sentences actually mean.

Crouchaldihno accuses the original poster of being "ignorant" of what features already exist in the game. If I worked at SI, I'd spend a moments though questioning why users might be unaware of such things...




From your list, I personally would only describe those two that I've included above as being "revolutionary". Maybe I'm harder to please... :)

I think you are right about the tutoring. The game does not take into account that the players work together every day. It is more like they meet every weekend and only the tutor-pupil meet for dinner and a movie.

As for the complication, it comes from the "add on" mentality. Continusously adding pieces will work for a while, but then you have to re-draw a new thing from scratch.

crouchaldinho
10-01-2010, 16:52
I am sorry that your valuable time was wasted. This is not a project I am running. If it were, you can be absolutely sure I would have formed the right team to push forward.

In this forum it will move slower but stil to the right direction.


I think the wise teacher was a hindrance rather than help. I gave him a little ego massage, didn't harm anyone.

You really are full of yourself, aren't you Tak?

tak
10-01-2010, 18:05
Everyone is, my friend crouchy.

But it is good to have you back because I have a very important question. I am preparing an experiment and I would like your help. Can you tell me who is the top football tactics expert in the world that has zero practical experience managing a football team?

I am looking for the most knowledgable person in terms of football theory. Someone who has really read a lot. The best on the planet. Chances are, he is in this forum somewhere. Do you know him?

Cougar2010
10-01-2010, 18:09
Everyone is, my friend crouchy.

But it is good to have you back because I have a very important question. I am preparing an experiment and I would like your help. Can you tell me who is the top football tactics expert in the world that has zero practical experience managing a football team?

I am looking for the most knowledgable person in terms of football theory. Someone who has really read a lot. The best on the planet. Chances are, he is in this forum somewhere. Do you know him?


Yet again just when you seem to want a sensible discussion you resort to trolling & baiting others :rolleyes:

I'll go back to ignoring you.

SCIAG
10-01-2010, 18:09
But it is good to have you back because I have a very important question. I am preparing an experiment and I would like your help. Can you tell me who is the top football tactics expert in the world that has zero practical experience managing a football team?

How can tactical knowledge be judged without seeing them in action?

tak
10-01-2010, 18:15
An PhD scientist on football tactics, something like that. Who hasn't actually managed. If you have his email as well, please PM me. It is not trolling, Cougar, it is an experiment.

weeeman27bob
10-01-2010, 18:18
An PhD scientist on football tactics, something like that. Who hasn't actually managed. If you have his email as well, please PM me. It is not trolling, Cougar, it is an experiment.

Good luck with that :thup:

SCIAG
10-01-2010, 19:00
A PhD in football tactics? :confused:

HammerDaFanBois
10-01-2010, 19:04
The new tactics system is a masterpiece in my opinion, taking the effort out of understanding the sliders and making tactics, and changing the tactical emphasis of the game. I consider it to be one of the greatest things to happen to the game in recent years.
.

In my opinion the new tactics system was vital if SI were to ever sell FM again in the future. If they had stuck with the execrable sliders it might well have killed the franchise.

It's a truism in software engineering that you often get more kudos from screwing something up and then fixing it than you'd from getting it right in the first place.

SCIAG
10-01-2010, 20:50
In fairness, life is like that. Football management, cooking, TV, politics. Music and books, less so. I don't know what I'm trying to prove :D

robbert_o154
10-01-2010, 22:20
An PhD scientist on football tactics, something like that. Who hasn't actually managed. If you have his email as well, please PM me. It is not trolling, Cougar, it is an experiment.
The experiment being how long you can abuse him before he leaves the thread?

crouchaldinho
10-01-2010, 22:35
The experiment being how long you can abuse him before he leaves the thread?

I think that's why nobody has volunteered their services so far. ;)

muncherdave
11-01-2010, 04:53
This is not a project I am running.


Really? Could have fooled me. Let us move on

tak
11-01-2010, 09:28
Indeed munchercave.

We will of course do the experiment, but meanwhile let me mention something else. Many people have discussed how the words of the manager have an unrealisticaly big effect on players. This is beause the morale system at the moment has limited complexity, so one answer to the journalists can have a massive result.

Have you noticed how sometimes they ask you "what do you think of the goal scoring ability of your team?". Knowing the game, I knew it was a trick question. If you say "yes, but we must be careful at the back" the team stops scoring. Yesterday I tried the other one: "we will outscore everyone", although I knew what'll happen. As predicted, the team had an unbelievably bad defence.

This is of course not realistic. There are a lot cleverer answers to that question and in any case, it seems like the players only communicate with the manager by reading the papers and then have disproportionate reactions. This happens because of the limits the management simulation "features" have.

If there is an attempt to "improve" them, more questions and answers might be added but the philosophy of "one action - one result" will stay the same. Actions, talks, relationships etc. must be inserted into a more complicated and realistic engine.

Mitja
11-01-2010, 09:42
I agree with your last point tak. imo media comments shouldn't have as much influence on changing morale as they have now, especially not since we don't have the ability to talk directly to our players. I'm not saying it shouldn't in cases like when you openly critique certain player for his performances etc. but managers often have one answer for media and different one for the team. it would be nice to see the interaction ability to expand a little.

also I agree that 'pick the right answer' and it's repitingness doesn't add much to the game.

tak
11-01-2010, 16:02
I think we have reached some very important conclusions to date.

For me it can be summed up to: Although elements of a player's personality are in the game, it is a "feature" that appears only during a match. Furthermore, interactions of personalities and personalities with external factors are not taken into account.

If I were to judge what th players are doing between matches I would say:

- They go to training, where they do not talk to other players or the manager.
- They live in a world where nothing happens or nothing affects them.
- They don't have feelings other than sadness and happiness. Those two feelings are affected by games' results and the manager's comments in the papers. (oh, sometimes, they don't like a fellow player. How did they interact with him is unknown)
- They learn about the plan of action for the next match, one minute before it begins and they also get a pep talk then.

These are the reasons why the manager in FM is basically a very knowledgable person, who sometimes speaks to the press.

The experiment I would like to conduct is a hypothetical one and i would like everyone to answer.

Take the number one expert in football tactics in the world, an academic who has devoted his life reading about tactics. If you assign this person as manager to a big premier team and give him the database of attributes etc., you would expect he will be using some fantastic tactics, full of ingenuity and creativity.

Let us, on the other hand take a great manager. Just because you love computers I will take Mr. Jobs. Now, he is to business what our expert is to tactics. Let us also assume he knows nill about football, no attributes, no pyramids, no nothing. Let us assign Jobs to the exact same team in a parallel universe.

Who will get the sack first?

djwilko6
11-01-2010, 16:16
Mr Jobs will get the sack first of course.

Squirmy Rooter 2.0
11-01-2010, 16:38
Tak, just to clarify, do you mean putting them in charge of an actual real-life club, or sitting them down in front of FM2010 ?

If it's the former, I would say Steve Jobs would get the boot first. If it's the latter, I'd say he would probably survive the longer.

tak
11-01-2010, 16:41
of an actual real life club yes. So two votes against Mr Jobs...

Tomer
11-01-2010, 16:47
Mr. Jobs won't last too long. He's out before Christmas!

robbert_o154
11-01-2010, 17:00
Depends on how well the assman manages to explain to him what offside means.

SCIAG
11-01-2010, 17:19
It would be realised early on that Mr Jobs was a complete numpty and he'd be sacked.

Blaupunkt
11-01-2010, 18:02
im sure tak will tell everyone that "Mr.Jobs" will not get the sack first and probably be in the job for the next 25 years having, unparalleled success and going on to be come the greatest manager the world has ever seen, but of course i could be wrong and in the real world "Mr.Jobs" would be sacked after a couple of months, as would the idiot who thought it would be a good idea to appoint the manager of his local asda to run the football club!

Heisenberg
11-01-2010, 22:47
tak, I think it's been established above that we accept that the man management nature of the game is important and in FM that it would be good to see it expanded and worked on, but you're never going to get the forum to agree that tactics don't matter and the focus of the game will likely always remain on the footballing aspects of the job, not the man management.

I personally think that after the advances made with the tactical interface have been successful that the next step is to advance and expand the player and press interaction, and feel it would be constructive to discuss realistic steps to be made in these areas. Events on the scale of the one given in your Ronaldinho example are impossible with the computers currently in use if the game is to remain a football managment sim, but I too would like to see more explanations of player problems and ways to deal with them. The question is; what would you like to see put in?. What is your "Leap of faith"?

Almondo
11-01-2010, 22:58
I'd have to say that Mr. Jobs would get the sack first. however tak myself and others are still waiting to see what your "Leap of Faith" is going to be. Although I don't think we'll be holding our breath for it.

edgar555
11-01-2010, 23:21
Tak still going on. And on. And on.
Even my 3 y o sister can tell you that Jobs would get the boot first.

robbert_o154
11-01-2010, 23:34
Not so in this "hypothetical experiment" (an oxymoron if there ever was one), probably.

wwfan
11-01-2010, 23:39
This thread is becoming increasingly bizarre, especially with the Steve Jobs reference. Jobs was ousted from Apple because he was unwilling to reign in development and innovation and concentrate on what Peters and Waterman would have categorised as 'excellent management'. Two of the three people that followed him were 'cross industry "excellent" managers' with the other being an internal appointment. All three successfully and successively drove Apple into the ground.

When Jobs was reappointed, he focused on the core principles of the business as he had envisioned it, which were practices of innovation and design. The hard-culture managerialism was replaced by total immersion into the requirements of the specific industry. He basically ignored generic principles of management in order to focus on the practices specific to the industry sector.

Jobs, who is often described as an egomaniac, manages by force of personality coupled with complete immersion into and deep knowledge of the industries with which he is involved. He is as far removed from he archetypal 'good manager possessing excellent "managerial" skills as defined by populist managerial literature' as it is possible to be.

In football management terms, this is akin to immersing the players in the technical, tactical and historical knowledge of their trade and trusting that strategic advantage would follow, the antithesis of 'generic, MBA-style' management, which assumes management skills are cross-industrial.

For examples of how 'excellent cross-industrial management' works you need look no further than Apple between Jobs' stints or Hewlett Packard post 1999. You could also look at the lack of improvement/total collapse of many of the companies originally categorised as being 'excellently managed' in the seminal research (Peters and Waterman, Deal and Kennedy, Ouchi et al) that defined modern theories of management. Without immersion into the specific requirements of the trade, generic managers have a strong tendency towards failure. However, the cult of the 'excellent' CEO tends to obscure this fact.

As much as I'd like to see FM grow in richness, this thread is seeming increasingly pointless given the almost total lack of knowledge of the game's mechanics, strategies of football and real life history, practices, theories and examples of management from the OP. Assuming the OP's response to this being 'good management is not what the populist literature says it', I'd like to pre-empt the criticism by asking, once again, what is good management? If it is what Steve Jobs does, it is total immersion into industry specifics, which, translated to football, means knowing tactics to the nth degree. If it isn't, then why have you given Jobs as an example of good management, as it sits in complete opposition to everything you've said is important about management so far? Or are we just talking about charisma, which Jobs has in spades, being the only important element of management?

Cougar2010
11-01-2010, 23:41
Interesting, personally I can't believe you are all going for Mr Jobs to go first as it really isn't that clear cut.

First off tak's example just wouldn't happen as no-one with no clue of football would ever get the job.


Taking the two examples that tak wants to compare:

1. Tactical expert but lacking motivation & man management skills.
Has the knowledge and knows what he wants to do on the pitch but struggles to get the players to perform. They lack motivation and bicker which leads to divides within the club. The club underperforms and ultimately the manager is sacked.

2. Mr Jobs
Motivates the players, keeps them happy, there is a togetherness about the club. They give 110% on the pitch and support their manager.


Which gets the sack first?

Who knows but the answer isn't clear cut.

Blaupunkt
12-01-2010, 00:14
well i have to say i didnt know who Mr.Jobs was, but it does not make any difference, while he might know "business" very well he does not know football and how football works, while it is still "management" it is very different to the type of thing Mr.Jobs knows so well.

you only have to look at successful business man who have brought football clubs in real life and have admitted that its not like any business they have ran before, they usually go on to sell the club a few years later after cutting their losses, if it was so easy why dont these guys appoint them selves as managers also. In fact a good example, Michael Knighton who tried to buy Man UTD but the deal fell through then took over Carlisle United, after the 1997-98 season he sacked the manager and tried to do it him self but if i remember rightly failed miserably.

@couger2010: unless i am missing something nowhere does TAK say this hypothetical footballing tactical expert is lacking in motivation or man management skills, so i am not sure where you get your 2 examples from.

the expert from the football world could be anyone from Terry Venables, Sir Alex Ferguson, guus hiddink, Giovanni Trapattoni etc etc.

HammerDaFanBois
12-01-2010, 02:35
This thread is becoming increasingly bizarre
...




Yeah, but look on the bright side. It gave you an excuse to post paragraph upon paragraph of twaddle...

wwfan
12-01-2010, 05:46
Yeah, but look on the bright side. It gave you an excuse to post paragraph upon paragraph of twaddle...

Yes, because knowledge of your subject matter is always useless, isn't it.

I hope you don't mind me posting you rather nice PM here as well to illustrate just how little of this thread you've understood. Don't worry, I'll remove the abusive bit.


If you really think anything an MBA teaches you is relevant to controlling the results of a set of functions (the match engine) then you are deluded.



I believe I was arguing the opposite and that generic management techniques don't much help football managers and that a deep immersion into football is important to real life football management and thus virtual football management. Other generic management techniques are useful but are not core to the business of football management in the same way in depth knowledge of football is. Tak's ideas, while interesting, are a form of managerial firefighting akin to MBA-style 'management by case studies', which I don't think captures the essence of any form of management, let alone football management.

Given I make my living out of researching and teaching this stuff (plus providing the conceptual design of the tactical creator), I thought perhaps it would have relevance to the debate on what might make a better and more realistic football management simulation. However, given that some seem to believe ignorance of managerial theory, practice and history carries more weight than a career in the field and/or that my knowledge is 'twaddle', I'll butt out. I'd prefer quality debate, but perhaps that is asking too much.

Almondo
12-01-2010, 06:45
I believe I was arguing the opposite and that generic management techniques don't much help football managers and that a deep immersion into football is important to real life football management and thus virtual football management.

This has summed up everything that has been posted in this thread especially over the last couple of pages as well as anything that tak has posted.

Squirmy Rooter 2.0
12-01-2010, 08:54
Interesting, personally I can't believe you are all going for Mr Jobs to go first as it really isn't that clear cut.
...
Taking the two examples that tak wants to compare:

1. Tactical expert but lacking motivation & man management skills.


Ahhh, but Tak didn't actually state that the tactical expert also lacks motivation & man management skills....


Take the number one expert in football tactics in the world, an academic who has devoted his life reading about tactics.

Not all academics are social-misfits you know... :)

RBKalle
12-01-2010, 10:16
So now we've come to this?

Hip MBA nonsense should turn any Average Joe who has read "Leadership in Business" and "How to become CEO in 30 days" into the new Alex Ferguson?

Puhlease...

I despise that MBA attitude with a strong passion.

It already baffles me how a generic "manager" can successfully run a company working in a branch of business the Manager has no knowledge of and experience about... Say, you have your shiny degree [or whatever certification qualifies you as MBA expert] and you're now in charge of a car company. Just to jump ship to a construction company in a couple of years... No, I don't get it.

And then am I supposed to think a business manager can become a football manager overnight? And a successful one nonetheless?

Let's say Paris Hilton stands a better chance of running for President

wwfan
12-01-2010, 11:17
So now we've come to this?

Hip MBA nonsense should turn any Average Joe who has read "Leadership in Business" and "How to become CEO in 30 days" into the new Alex Ferguson?

Puhlease...

I despise that MBA attitude with a strong passion.

It already baffles me how a generic "manager" can successfully run a company working in a branch of business the Manager has no knowledge of and experience about... Say, you have your shiny degree [or whatever certification qualifies you as MBA expert] and you're now in charge of a car company. Just to jump ship to a construction company in a couple of years... No, I don't get it.

And then am I supposed to think a business manager can become a football manager overnight? And a successful one nonetheless?

Let's say Paris Hilton stands a better chance of running for President

Tell me about it. It's the bane of management research and management practice. I recommend Mintzberg's 'Managers not MBAs' for anyone who wants a good overview of the problems. Very relevant to the debate we've had in this thread.

tak
12-01-2010, 11:52
So now we've come to this?

Hip MBA nonsense should turn any Average Joe who has read "Leadership in Business" and "How to become CEO in 30 days" into the new Alex Ferguson?

Puhlease...

I despise that MBA attitude with a strong passion.

It already baffles me how a generic "manager" can successfully run a company working in a branch of business the Manager has no knowledge of and experience about... Say, you have your shiny degree [or whatever certification qualifies you as MBA expert] and you're now in charge of a car company. Just to jump ship to a construction company in a couple of years... No, I don't get it.

And then am I supposed to think a business manager can become a football manager overnight? And a successful one nonetheless?

Let's say Paris Hilton stands a better chance of running for President

This is a very good observation. It is bizzare how we came to talk about MBA qualifications. I think it has something to do with what wwfan is teaching at school. Who knows?

To dismiss charismatic leaders, is to dismiss the history of mankind. However, they were also the product of the environment they lived in. And indeed, they didn't lead just by charisma, they had a good knowledge of their subject.

Going back to the game, I think the main question is: Should real life interactions (what people call man-management, but a lot more than that) be simulated by a few questions and answers? If we want to make the game richer, is it a matter of adding more questions and more answers? No.

The match engine is a very good example of how attributes and instructions are combined to create a realistic football match.

If a similar engine was built to simulate the interactions of people between themselves and the environment, we would come closer to what football actually is. The decision to build that is a leap of faith, as opposed to the easy route of adding a few more actions for the virtual manager.

wwfan
12-01-2010, 12:05
Nobody has dismissed charismatic managers with a good knowledge of their field. Stand up Jose Mourinho. What we are questioning is whether skilled managers (i.e. managers who know management theory and have some generic managerial experience) with no knowledge of the field can do a good job. This assumption is what MBA programmes are built on and seems to be what you are claiming is what makes a great football manager, certainly above and beyond knowledge of specific footballing strategies.

Or have I got it wrong?

If this is the case, then you want the scenario or case-style management problems you've outlined to become core to the game for high level managers, with actual knowledge of the industry becoming less important. FM should thus become a game in which tactics and strategy become less important as you progress, even though they are the reasons for your progression?

It seems you want an engine that produces motivational case-style management problems with linear right/wrong, black/white solutions? Once more, this is MBA-speak masquerading as management. Or do you wish for a Sims-style virtual environment in which you can see the manager making friends, watching training, dealing with a player having girlfriend issues?

tak
12-01-2010, 12:34
A skilled manager with no knowledge of the field will do a better job than a knowledgable person who has no experience or knowledge of management. The reason is that a skilled manager will get the results needed, using any and every weapon in his arsenal (including consulting a tactician to make up for his handicap, until he eventualy learns, because no doubt football knowledge is needed). The professor is not result orientated, has no idea how to apply his knowledge in a real life situation and it will take longer to learn to manage, probably collapsing in the process. But this is an theoretical example as it would never happen IRL.

My "case study", as you call it, was just an example to show how complicated real football is. I do not want any of that in the game (well, maybe just players' sponsors, a huge force in football at the moment).

Tell me though, do you think external factors or the manager's character have nothing to do with success?

iacovone
12-01-2010, 13:18
Bloody hell is this thread still rambling on?

crouchaldinho
12-01-2010, 13:27
Bloody hell is this thread still rambling on?

Apparently so, although I'm not sure how? :confused:

iacovone
12-01-2010, 13:36
Let me guess.

He still hasn't offered one idea?
Everyone is still trying to convince him that tactics ARE a big part of a manager's role?
And he's still retorting in a condescending manner?

:eek:

What? I got all 3 right? Amazing :cool:

LSS
12-01-2010, 14:02
I think that FM focuses too much on tweaking tactics for INDIVIDUAL matches.

I don't claim to know anything about real management, but my gut feeling is that...

A) Manager should establish the base playing philosophy for the team. NOT for individual matches. This should be something that the players train and practice. Something that doesn't change for the next match unless something happens that breaks it (injury crisis, etc.).
Pretty much what the tactics creator does now.

B) Manager should establish the playing style for individual players. "You can't even hit the stadium with your long shots, so don't do it!"
What I'm aiming for is... Player Specific instructions... NOT position specific. And when a player is told to do this or that long enough (depending on how well he adapts to things), it becomes his "preferred" move". (For example, how Guardiola has changed Keita)

C) Simulating realistic relationships between players and between players and the manager requires way too advanced AI to feasible in years to come.

RBKalle
12-01-2010, 14:35
Good points LSS.

In this very thread I had been advocating Individual Player's instruction over the current "positional instructions no matter who you field in that position", but it got lost in the whole MBA crapfest.


My 4-4-2 diamond might have my first choice Box-to-Box MC shoot from distance, or passing through balls, but if I substitute him, for whatever reason, with a hard-working but banana-footed benchwarmer, I don't want to go through the whole tactical editing of his duty.
Just to revert back to the old one later one.

Instead every player should have his OWN role, and the Green Dot should be awarded accordingly...

Gennaro Gattuso and Steven Gerrard are both Green Dot MC, but I can't surely expect them to be "Accomplished" at the other's role/duty.

That's the first and foremost tweak I'd like to have in FM2011...


P.S. a quick reply to the MBA thingie... A charismatic leader with zero knowledge/experience will fail, much worse than a non-charismatic but competent manager.

Otherwise, Mourinho could just land a fat contract with a NBA or NFL team... After all the guy can speak English and is charismatic.

Then who cares if he can't tell a Guard from a Playmaker or if he doesn't know the difference between Shot-Gun and I Formations.

I can't believe some people buy into such crap... Motivation, leadership and whatnot are fine, but KNOWLEDGE and COMPETENCE can't be done without.

tak
12-01-2010, 16:10
I think that FM focuses too much on tweaking tactics for INDIVIDUAL matches.

I don't claim to know anything about real management, but my gut feeling is that...

A) Manager should establish the base playing philosophy for the team. NOT for individual matches. This should be something that the players train and practice. Something that doesn't change for the next match unless something happens that breaks it (injury crisis, etc.).
Pretty much what the tactics creator does now.

B) Manager should establish the playing style for individual players. "You can't even hit the stadium with your long shots, so don't do it!"
What I'm aiming for is... Player Specific instructions... NOT position specific. And when a player is told to do this or that long enough (depending on how well he adapts to things), it becomes his "preferred" move". (For example, how Guardiola has changed Keita)

C) Simulating realistic relationships between players and between players and the manager requires way too advanced AI to feasible in years to come.

The issues you touched are very similar to what me and others have voiced above, before Mr. MBA stroke again to destroy a fine conversation.

I said above that at the moment, the players go to training where they don't meet their manager. Tactics are not learned in training but are set 5 minutes before the game with many players changing positions from match to match with minimal problems.

I cannot believe that talented managers who has spent decades in the job, produces a revolutionary tactic every Sunday, as some people will have as think. In sports, success comes with repetition and hard work. To endure those, the player has to be mentaly strong, and there is the role of the manager.

Strong teams are built through hard work, and the manager's role is not just to assign a formation or a position's tasks but to manage the players as they are working and adjusting their play to his instructions.

We seem to be so baffled by the Pyramids and other marvelous publications that we have lost touch with reality. We envision the good football manager as someone who changes the tactical instructions every week. Of course, certain instructions are given for every opponent but the main talent of a football manager is to keep the players focussed for long periods of time. This is a lot harder than some people think.

Great teams and great tactics are formed through training and focus. When I said tactics are as important part of a manager's job as some characters will have us think, this is what I meant. The football manager is not some bespactacled teacher with hairy ears who gives long speeches about the evolution of tactics. The football manager knows football but more often than not, he is not reinventing the wheel. He keeps a steady pace of work and focus in place. This is the hard stuff. To make intelligent remarks about pyramids while reading the history of 4-4-2 is easy.

SCIAG
12-01-2010, 16:26
Nobody produces a revolutionary tactic every Sunday, and indeed changing your tactic every week in FM will only lose you marks.

Inverting The Pyramid focuses very much on moves that were taught in training and practiced to death. It also emphasises how the shape of the formation is important.

Nobody has denied that man management is important. However, when it comes down to it, the larger effect on the outcome of a match is tactics. It may not earn you 3-0 wins every week, but a good tactical set up is the difference between three or four places, at least, in the league table. If your tactic exploits a certain weakness in the opposition tactics, you could play far above the sum of the player's abilities. One player with his head in the clouds will have a detrimental effect, but not one as large as unsuitable tactics.

Yes, man management is important, and the best managers will be great man managers, but unless you know a way of getting your players to win football matches, they can be as determined as they like, they won't win as often.

Matt123456
12-01-2010, 16:49
I cannot believe this thread is still going. It has become so pointless now that it must be closed. I almost wish we could give Tak an ultimatum to put some ideas forward, but whether you put it in bold, large font, underline it or put in itallics he still ignores it and rambles on in the smug self-satisfied way of someone who believes he is always right and even those who are a lot, lot, lot cleverer than him and have more knowledge are wrong

I don't even know why I'm posting because I'll just get abused or ignored, but I'm going to take the bait. Tak stop preaching or instructing or "leading a seminar" or whatever else you want to call the rubbish that you post. Put down some ideas or go away. I am actually quite interested in whether you actually have any ideas or you want to just start a conversation/argument. I'm thinking the latter.

tak
12-01-2010, 16:52
Put down some ideas or go away. .

I've noticed a few people say that. Where does it come from?

Matt123456
12-01-2010, 16:55
I've noticed a few people say that. Where does it come from?

What do you mean where does it come from? You talk about a leap of faith then you don't even give any ideas about what that leap of faith could be. I mean ideas that could be incorporated in FM and that could work with current technology. Then you go insult anyone who dares to differ from your point of view. It is quite annoying.

bigdunk
12-01-2010, 17:16
I've noticed a few people say that. Where does it come from?

It comes from you coming on here, demanding big improvements and then expecting everybody else to do the work. You either have some idea what you want to happen (in which case, post it so we can discuss it properly), or you don't have a clue (in which case, why are you even posting?).

RBKalle
12-01-2010, 19:23
Managers do not lay down a brand new tactic every week, but if you [tak] seriously think you can show up with your clueless 3-4-3 at Nou Camp and win, just thanks to a brilliant piece of motivation, with pats on the back, hugs and cheers, then you're so off target it's not worth it discussing anymore.

Drop the MBA nonsensical bollocks, and focus on the "leap of faith" you advocated, while you forgot to provide a single FEASIBLE proposition besides the "we need more mental motivation! more! MORE I TELL YOU!" without even hinting a way it could be done.


Others, me included, tried to give some constructive input, while you're now stuck in this loop about Pyramids and motivational manure which has no place here.

Just keep it FM and football related, and try at Herbalife or Amway if you want to put into use your MBA mumbo-jumbo

Sorry if it comes out blunt, but this thread had potential, and still has it. Seeing it ruined by a silly OT is a shame.

Squirmy Rooter 2.0
12-01-2010, 20:03
Sorry if it comes out blunt, but this thread had potential, and still has it. Seeing it ruined by a silly OT is a shame.

I agree.

For instance, I think this was a fair and reasonable question....



Going back to the game, I think the main question is: Should real life interactions (what people call man-management, but a lot more than that) be simulated by a few questions and answers? If we want to make the game richer, is it a matter of adding more questions and more answers?


Personally I agree with you there, that ultimately to take the interactions between players/managers/staff/press etc. to the "next level" that it's simply not enough to just add more questions/answers to the existing system.

Sadly though Tak, I think you have far too many people lining up just to take pot-shots at you (deservedly or not), that you might struggle to get this thread to move away from all the previous name-calling and pigtail-pulling...

djwilko6
12-01-2010, 20:16
that you might struggle to get this thread to move away from all the previous name-calling and pigtail-pulling...

You mean the things that only tak himself has been doing with his veiled insults? (like "teacher", "professor", calling people who reply to him as drunk, mocking what wwfan does for his job, need I go on?)

tak
12-01-2010, 20:34
This is just an internet forum, we have plenty of time and I can repeat as many times as needed: I never said anything about MBA. The ancient teacher started that talk and because it seems it's his last weapon, he is going to stick with it. Fair enough.

It is not strange that the moaners have no agenda whatsoever other than stop this thread. But why are they so negative? It is because this thread puts their tactical waffle in its place. Which is in the pub or (in their case) the school yard. Well, I apologise, I really do, but this tactical hyperanalysis is just a bubble.

But let us go back to the subject:

A few people have mention the complete detachment of the virtual manager from his players as well as the inability to built a team in FM like a real manager would do. That is, keep the players focused and content while they are working in training repeating tactical instructions that, of course, he gave. So, the manager has to solve all outside and inside problems that could affect that focus and at the same time deal with the board, the fans, the agends, the sponsors, the press etc. For high achieving teams, the effort of simultaneously inspiring the players and getting the best out of everyone, is tremendous.

This is called management, it has nothing to do with an MBA qualification (it never had), and it is what separates the men from the boys. Any teenager can think of a brand new fantastic way Wenger could utilise his players. I am sure some of the angry posters, think of 20 every day. But make it work? I'd like to see some trying.

Now, I understand the little knitting club of "tactical experts" that reign in this forum are upset. Look, lads, no need for crying. Why can you not just go elsewhere and talk about how many clicks of closing down was Ajax using in the 70s?

Squirmy Rooter I am coming back to talk about what you mentioned...

Cleon
12-01-2010, 20:58
This is just an internet forum, we have plenty of time and I can repeat as many times as needed: I never said anything about MBA. The ancient teacher started that talk and because it seems it's his last weapon, he is going to stick with it. Fair enough.

It is not strange that the moaners have no agenda whatsoever other than stop this thread. But why are they so negative? It is because this thread puts their tactical waffle in its place. Which is in the pub or (in their case) the school yard. Well, I apologise, I really do, but this tactical hyperanalysis is just a bubble.

But let us go back to the subject:

A few people have mention the complete detachment of the virtual manager from his players as well as the inability to built a team in FM like a real manager would do. That is, keep the players focused and content while they are working in training repeating tactical instructions that, of course, he gave. So, the manager has to solve all outside and inside problems that could affect that focus and at the same time deal with the board, the fans, the agends, the sponsors, the press etc. For high achieving teams, the effort of simultaneously inspiring the players and getting the best out of everyone, is tremendous.

This is called management, it has nothing to do with an MBA qualification (it never had), and it is what separates the men from the boys. Any teenager can think of a brand new fantastic way Wenger could utilise his players. I am sure some of the angry posters, think of 20 every day. But make it work? I'd like to see some trying.

Now, I understand the little knitting club of "tactical experts" that reign in this forum are upset. Look, lads, no need for crying. Why can you not just go elsewhere and talk about how many clicks of closing down was Ajax using in the 70s?

Squirmy Rooter I am coming back to talk about what you mentioned...

It's just going in circles this thread and people are becoming insultive in their posts like the one I've quoted. Thread closed.